China’s Noisy Nuclear Submarines
dump...@hotmail.com
is noisier than the Russian Delta III-class submarines
built more than 30 years ago, according to a report
produced by the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI)."
See:
Dennis
I'd always heard that their submarines are a lot noisier than Soviet
and Western ones, and that they mostly don't work. Others no doubt have
more details.
Dennis
Ray O'Hara
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCBB8EFD3578ts...@130.133.1.4...
PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
PaPa Peng
>
> PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
>
said they are not leading edge types and are diesel powered at that.
The current PLAN submarine force is at best one in development and
evolution. Current submarines will train a core of submariners needed
when there is a clear strategic role for such a force. The strategic
submarine force will be a nuclear armed and nuclear powered one.
China is not there yet with a credible force, an absence not as a
consequence of technical capability. I don't think the PLAN has a
clear concept on what the role of a technically competent submarine
force will play. Masters of the Universe for Global Domination is not
it.
There is no pressing strategic or defense issue that requires China
crash build such a force. China is untouchable on land. Land based
defenses covers out to sea for 50 miles or so. This neatly fits in
with China's continental shelf that varies from 100 miles to 250
miles. No hostile surface ship can survive in these CS waters. The
US has only nuclear powered subs - boomers, which have no business to
be in shallow waters, and attack submarines. A 535 ft Seawolf attack
sub is very vulnerable in (remarkably constant globally) 460 ft
continental shelf waters. A smaller and conventional diesel has the
advantage.
Ray O'Hara
"PaPa Peng" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea544cd2-7f87-4db1...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
the Chinese subs with be fish condos.
PaPa Peng
> defenses covers out to sea for 50 miles or so. This neatly fits in
> with China's continental shelf that varies from 100 miles to 250
> miles.
Correction: Land based defenses covers out to sea for 250 miles or
so.
PaPa Peng
> the Chinese subs with be fish condos.-
Is that so? Well if that makes you happy, okay. But don't stare too
long at the fish or you will get cross eyed. Now run along little
fella and finish your homework.
William Black
>> PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
>>
> Bow taken. I haven't paid much attention to PLAN submarines. As you
> said they are not leading edge types and are diesel powered at that.
Then they should be quieter than the nukes.
That they're not is very telling.
> The current PLAN submarine force is at best one in development and
> evolution. Current submarines will train a core of submariners needed
> when there is a clear strategic role for such a force.
That's horribly arse-upwards.
I don't think the PLAN has a
> clear concept on what the role of a technically competent submarine
> force will play. Masters of the Universe for Global Domination is not
> it.
Then they're doomed.
If you don't know where you're going you aren't going to get there...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
William Black
It doesn't matter.
China has no 'blue water' navy and so can't defend their shipping out at
sea.
Ray O'Hara
=================================================================
you severely over estimate Chinese capabilities.
Ray O'Hara
===================================================================
planes leave bases in the central US to bomb in the middle east and then
they return to the usa, one long non-stop flight.
. in flight refueling gives the USAF global reach.
vaughn
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hedtqo$ks2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> PaPa Peng wrote:
>>> PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
>>>
>> Bow taken. I haven't paid much attention to PLAN submarines. As you
>> said they are not leading edge types and are diesel powered at that.
>
> Then they should be quieter than the nukes.
>
> That they're not is very telling.
Who says they are not? Modern navies actually have little defense against a
low-tech conventional sub lying doggo waiting to get lucky.
Vaughn
Roger Conroy
"vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message
news:hee4uq$fsh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
If A>B and B>C are stated as given then by deduction A>C is true.
If they are noisier than Delta IIIs (as claimed in the OP) they are noisier
than modern US nukes.
Modern diesels are in turn quieter than modern nukes.
Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels by
definition don't have.
The cooling pumps must run 24/7 even if the sub is not moving. Only a cold
dead unfueled reactor doesn't need cooling and that is not suposed to ever
happen outside of a dockyard.
vaughn
"Roger Conroy" <roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hee68k$s3j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message
> news:hee4uq$fsh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> low-tech conventional sub lying doggo waiting to get lucky.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> If A>B and B>C are stated as given then by deduction A>C is true.
Only if both A and B are correct. Otherwise all bets are off.
> If they are noisier than Delta IIIs (as claimed in the OP) they are noisier
> than modern US nukes.
How much noise do they make sitting idle on the bottom or hovering?
Vaughn
Roger Conroy
What is the absolute minimum mechanical systems that must be on while
lurking with intent in the mud?
Modern Diesel: A few small fans for cooling electronics such as the sonar
equipment and ventilation for the crew.
In a diesel the loudest noises could easily be the crew breathing, moving
and whispering. Remove the crew, redesign electronics to use convective
cooling and the noise while on the bottom could be zero! The only sound the
target ever hears is the torpedo.
Nukes: As above plus that reactor cooling pump. Moving an adequate quantity
of water through pipes/conduits silently is practically impossible - as far
as we (need to) know of course.
Disclaimer:
I'm going purely by what I've read and heard from what I believe to be
reliable sources. I have no submarine experience myself.
hcobb
> It doesn't matter.
>
> China has no 'blue water' navy and so can't defend their shipping out at
> sea.
It's worse than that.
They can't keep supercarriers outside of F-35C range.
-HJC
Alistair Gunn
> Nukes: As above plus that reactor cooling pump. Moving an adequate quantity
> of water through pipes/conduits silently is practically impossible - as far
> as we (need to) know of course.
A reactor (wiki claims the US' S5G and S8G reactors could do it) that can
use natural circulation would be much quieter, still some pipe noise but
no pump noise.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Dennis
> Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels
> by definition don't have.
And also the steam turbines, especially their gearboxes.
> The cooling pumps must run 24/7 even if the sub is not moving. Only a
> cold dead unfueled reactor doesn't need cooling and that is not
> suposed to ever happen outside of a dockyard.
I've read a number of stories of SSNs turning off their cooling pumps
and relying on natural convection when running at low speeds, maybe 4
knots. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that SSBNs run this way all the
time when on station, since I'm sure they patrol at comparable speed.
The US built at least one SSN, Narwal, with a natural-circulation
reactor.
Dennis
vaughn
> Roger Conroy wrote:
>
>> Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels
>> by definition don't have.
>
> And also the steam turbines, especially their gearboxes.
And other important bits such as main feed pumps.
Vaughn
PaPa Peng
> planes leave bases in the central US to bomb in the middle east and then
> they return to the usa, one long non-stop flight.
> . in flight refueling gives the USAF global reach.
You are talking about an 18 to 20 hour mission. Over China it takes
something like 8 hours to transit east/west and six hours north/
south. That's plenty much hostile territory to remain over. A phone
call to the next airbase up your flight path will allow them to set up
a real rip roaring welcome party.
China's "workshop of the world" facilities are indeed mostly in the
seaboard but now spreading to inner China provinces. Wuhan and
Chongqing are in the order of 20000 and 3000 miles up the Yangtze and
they are enormous manufacturing regions. Civilian factories are all
over the landscape. Military production facilities are something
else. They are a holdover from Mao's era where China's critical
production facilities were built far inland and were hardened against
nuclear weapons. Their locations are unknown and certainly not amid
the regular commercial factories. That is to say critical armaments
production targets are spread out over hundreds of miles in remote
mountainous terrain. Long range bombing to locate and attack those
will surely get you killed without you achieving any of your
objectives.
PaPa Peng
Oho. China has supercarriers now. You and Billy Black are more than
welcome to try to persuade the Chinese to buy, or develop themselves
with you supplying the expensive sub-systems, all the latest toys your
military industrial complex can dream up.. It is indeed a pretty
lucrative and interesting career. But I think the Chinese are more
interested in emasculating your economy than in neutraliszing your
military. Hint economics is a more sophisticated skill set you won't
have the smarts to play in anyway.
William Black
The Chinese certainly don't want a war, but they are an expansionist
hegemony and may well push too hard and find themselves in a shooting war.
At that point they'll find they have no means of defending their surface
trade against someone with a blue water capability.
Arved Sandstrom
Shouldn't China develop its own independent world-class education system
and high-tech industries before emasculating the US economy? As it
stands right now, if the PRC couldn't send its cream of the crop to
Western schools, and steal industrial secrets from the West, it'd be
pretty screwed.
As for the Chinese having all the smarts in economics, domestically the
PRC is sort of where the West was in the 19th century (Industrial
evolution and all that), and in terms of foreign trade it's basically
17th/18th century Western imperialism (the resource grabs you mentioned
in Africa and South America, and flooding target markets with cheap shit
produced by underpaid labour). Sure, there's a thin veneer of more
sophisticated behaviour, but in general you've got a few centuries
catching up to do.
AHS
William Black
They're going to fail for exactly the same reason the USSR failed.
Their people want washing machines and DVD players and all the rest of it.
They'd also like a nice house and garden, but they'll manage with a box
if they have to.
The state spends all the money on other stuff, plus what gets stolen by
the Party machine.
You can't operate an economy that lives on the manufacture of domestic
appliances and not allow your own people to have them.
And repression can only be effective against a small proportion of the
population.
In the end it'll disintegrate, like the USSR did.
Only with China, historically, the mess is always much worse and more
people will die.
Thomas Womack
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>They're going to fail for exactly the same reason the USSR failed.
>
>Their people want washing machines and DVD players and all the rest of it.
And their people have them;
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/01/content_10746955.htm
indicates that part of the Chinese economic-subsidy scheme involved
providing cheap washing machines.
That's a herdsman in Inner Mongolia upgrading from a 14-inch CRT telly
to a 26-inch LCD telly, and paying for it about half as much as I'd
have paid for an equivalent telly here.
'China, the world's largest producer and exporter of household
appliances, also gives a 13-percent tax rebate to household electrical
appliance exporters and exports half its production every year, said
Zeng Xiaoan of the Ministry of Finance (MOF).'
(IE half the production of household appliances in China is used
locally)
I expect China will probably make it; I plan to be at the World Expo
in Shanghai this time next year to see how it's getting on.
Tom
Roger Conroy
Can modern nuke subs lurk without running a steam turbine?
Richard Casady
<roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Can modern nuke subs lurk without running a steam turbine?
Sure, until a tiny battery runs down. Then they can lurk on the
surface with the diesel running.
Casady
Andrew Swallow
> PaPa Peng wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 11:16 am, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 4:06 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter.
>>>> China has no 'blue water' navy and so can't defend their shipping
>>>> out at
>>>> sea.
>>> It's worse than that.
>>>
>>> They can't keep supercarriers outside of F-35C range.
>>>
>>> -HJC
>>
>> Oho. China has supercarriers now. You and Billy Black are more than
>> welcome to try to persuade the Chinese to buy, or develop themselves
>> with you supplying the expensive sub-systems, all the latest toys your
>> military industrial complex can dream up.. It is indeed a pretty
>> lucrative and interesting career. But I think the Chinese are more
>> interested in emasculating your economy than in neutraliszing your
>> military. Hint economics is a more sophisticated skill set you won't
>> have the smarts to play in anyway.
>
> The Chinese certainly don't want a war, but they are an expansionist
> hegemony and may well push too hard and find themselves in a shooting war.
>
> At that point they'll find they have no means of defending their surface
> trade against someone with a blue water capability.
>
>
>
African politicians are basically bandits. During the Cold Way
their fathers made a lot of money by stealing factories and mines.
They called the process nationalisation with the aim of giving the
profit to the workers. The local warlords replaced the managers
with their relatives and stole the pay roll money. Since the
relatives knew nothing about business little was made and even
less sold. Very bad for the workers. The Chinese have been
setting up new mines and railways. The politicians will get
greedy and want more than bribes, so try repeating the same trick.
The West did not need African raw materials but China does.
To keep the resources China will have to use force.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
generator to work with a nuclear reactor on low power. Since
these generators do not contain moving parts they are quiet.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator>
Andrew Swallow
William Black
China has no way of projecting their military power into Africa.
Thomas Womack
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>China has no way of projecting their military power into Africa.
What do you mean by this? That the Chinese navy would be unable to
mount an amphibious assault against a port defended by the Mozambique
coastguard?
If they can get mine managers and mining equipment in and out, they
can presumably get infantry and infantry kit in and out by the same
route - I would assume that there's been a single large bribe paid to
ensure that there's no customs inspection of things arriving on
Sinopec planes and ships - at which point you can seize an airport or
a seaport and start transporting troops in by 747 or by ship.
African resource-intensive nations don't seem to have credible navies
and air forces, and I would imagine the troops would be coming in with
UN backing 'to deal with an intolerable developing human rights
situation involving racist attacks against Chinese-ethnicity
shopkeepers' or some such worthy line.
Tom
William Black
I would assume that there's been a single large bribe paid to
> ensure that there's no customs inspection of things arriving on
> Sinopec planes and ships - at which point you can seize an airport or
> a seaport and start transporting troops in by 747 or by ship.
>
So could Blackwater.
All the African country needs is a friend with a smallish navy.
The PLAN does not seem to have a realistic amphibious lift capacity.
Arved Sandstrom
China itself will probably make it, if by China we refer to some largish
chunk of what's currently labeled the PRC. I don't think there will be a
PRC by the end of this century - I expect that to go, relatively
peacefully or bloodily, well before that. I also expect that whatever
government (or governments) rule what is now the PRC, at the end of this
century, will have had to deal with major disruptions due to resource
problems - food, fresh water and pollution. By major I mean "very
major". They won't be the only ones - I suspect a lot of Asian countries
will have similar huge problems before the century is out; India may not
be India as we know it either.
I don't see China - any form of China - successfully bringing the
majority of their population up to North American or Western European
living standards any time soon. And I don't believe they have time to do
it before they are faced with too many other problems. The extent to
which they spend on their military is, I think, somewhat irrelevant;
spending more will somewhat hasten the crises.
AHS
PaPa Peng
> sophisticated behaviour, but in general you've got a few centuries
> catching up to do.
>
Done that in 30 years. Go google any social and economic subject on
China. The number of superlatives is sickening. Go to any public
library or the magazine rack at a large book store. Same sickening
over abundance of articles on why China is or has over taken the US.
Go to world history section in the same bookstore to read thick books
on China. Some are good. Many are rehash compilations of the
magazine articles. You can tell because the examples they give are
already outdated by the frenetic pace of events happening in China.
But none of the books dismiss China as a backward, poor and unstable
giant that is going to disintegrate at any moment. Simple reason.
Such books don't sell for a good reason. Its contrarian to the
evidence everyone can see for themselves except for brain dead Cold
War warriors like you.
I don't need to engage in a pissing match in this newsgroup. Unless
you are independently wealthy, successfully self employed or are
retired and have a good pension your job is already on the line and so
is the profitability of the company that employs you. And you want
to rattle sabers against a power you are so desperate to get on your
side as a G2 partner? Hint. Won't happen. G20 however is fine. You
can try to get them on your side and their aggregate numbers are
bigger than China's. G19 ex-China is worthwhile counterweight to
China to nurture. Hint #2. Won't happen either. Everyone in the
G19 (G20 less the US) is looking for ways to reduce their reserves
held in USD. It also means that they are seeking to reduce their
overall engagement with the US. The US will remain a major power, but
as one of a handful.
Pres. Obama took a better part of a month to leak that he may send
34,000 troops to Afghanistan. This mini surge is only for holding the
supply line, hopefully. That war is unwinnable and is grinding down
the US-allied forces. And this by an irregular peasant force that
has only basic man portable weapons against the mightiest war machine
this planet has ever seen? You should get your ABCs right first.
Jack Linthicum
Distance from Shanghai to Kashi is 2619 miles, a little less than the
distance from Halifax to Vancouver, 2750 miles, ie across Canada,
probably a 5 hour 30 minute flight.
PaPa Peng
> Shouldn't China develop its own independent world-class education system
> and high-tech industries before emasculating the US economy? As it
> stands right now, if the PRC couldn't send its cream of the crop to
> Western schools, and steal industrial secrets from the West, it'd be
> pretty screwed.
Go google "China, education, universities" etc. and satisfy yourself
as to where China is at in educational achievements. Another good
exercise is take a stroll around the Ivy League universities in the
US. In Berkeley, UCLA, MIT the number of ethnic Chinese undergrad and
grad population is scary. You can also see the ethnic Chinese teams
in action at their annual engineering competitions. I say ethnic
Chinese because most of them are American born and educated. Ask them
and they will freely concede that mainland Chinese are more often than
not academically above them. On grounds of language, money and
entrance qualifications mainlanders cannot enrol in undergrad
courses. Its an apples and oranges thing. Postgrad programs have
taken off in China only over the past 10 years. The results will
follow in due course. Look for significant results in biotechnology
and green energy technologies. Civil engineering projects are mostly
scaling up and China is the only place where an ambitious designer
from anywhere in the world can realize his dream project.
Billy Black is proud of his Indian heritage. His problem is he fells
it obligatory to diss China to prove how great India is. Indians
often cite their IT outsourcing as their great achievement and China
is nowhere in sight. Google this (below) subject for more articles.
[ Chinese student, 18, wins, prompting call for earlier math and
science education in U.S.
By Patrick Thibodeau , Computerworld , 06/09/2009
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/060909-china-dominates-nsa-backed-coding.html?hpg1=bn
Programmers from China and Russia have dominated an international
competition on everything from writing algorithms to designing
components.
Whether the outcome of this competition is another sign that math and
science education in the U.S. needs improvement may spur debate. But
of the 70 finalist in it, 20 were from China, 10 from Russia and only
two from the U.S. ...]
First point. The US is ranked low in this prestigious bragging rights
contest.
Next point. In another article it was noted that no Indian made it to
the finals.
Roger Conroy
"Thomas Womack" <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Oym*fU...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <heh96k$2sm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>China has no way of projecting their military power into Africa.
>
> What do you mean by this? That the Chinese navy would be unable to
> mount an amphibious assault against a port defended by the Mozambique
> coastguard?
>
Your choice of Mozambique to illustrate your argument is rather unfortunate
as Mozambique is an immediate neighbour and close ally of South Africa,
which has a not entirely inconsequential navy.
If a Chinese Naval expeditionary force arrived with malicious intent near
the coast of Mozambique the South African Navy will "inconvenience" them
with Exocet missiles from their frigates and torpedoes from their Type 209s.
The SAAF are currently a bit short of effective ASuW and ASW assets right
now but plans are afoot to remedy the situation so that they will be capable
of joining the fray. Their arrival will at the very least be delayed long
enough to mobilise a considerable land force from all over Southern Africa
to resist the landing of troops. The Chinese will have to be capable of
landing a division within a very short period to have any chance of holding
a beachhead. Can they even bring an entire division with them in a single
tranche?
The real Chinese "invasion" of Africa has been ongoing for several years
now - a whole lot of commercial activity in a wide range of sectors from
mining to shopkeeping. Sending "commercial colonist" is a lot more cost
effective than an "amphibious assault".
Thomas Womack
PaPa Peng <papa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Civilian factories are all
> over the landscape. Military production facilities are something
> else. They are a holdover from Mao's era where China's critical
> production facilities were built far inland and were hardened against
> nuclear weapons. Their locations are unknown and certainly not amid
> the regular commercial factories.
On the other hand, hardened factories don't move terribly fast,
American technical reconnaissance is legendarily good, and they've had
thirty years since Mao's era, with telescopes and spectrographs of
constantly increasing sophistication, to figure out where the things
are. I'm sure the coordinates for the cruise missiles to take out the
tunnel entrances, and the bridges that are kind of obligatory to move
things around in mountainous terrain, have been entered for decades.
But if you're bombing facilities inside China, you've already started
world war three, and by the time a cruise missile launched from the
edge of Chinese claimed waters has got to Shanxi province, a DF-31
from Hainan will have hit San Francisco and the state of the Chinese
hardened factories becomes militarily uninteresting.
Tom
PaPa Peng
> China's most likely enemy are the African countries.
> greedy and want more than bribes, so try repeating the same trick.
> The West did not need African raw materials but China does.
> To keep the resources China will have to use force.
>
(Chinese investments) that lays the golden eggs. No goose no gold
eggs kapisch? The Chinese copper mine in Afghanistan operates without
probloem while outside the mine a full scale insurgency by Islamic
militants is going on. Same in Somalia.
Point 2. Its only money. Civil war makes the mine impossible to
operate say. Its only single digit billions and that is a large
mine. Dropping that is a lot cheaper and has zero fallout compared to
getting involved in a civil war to prop up any side. It's loss
wouldn't even affect the world price of that mine's product. Taking
out Iraq's oil production, a truly critical resource, caused hardly a
ripple in the world oil pricing. This is where faulty thinking on
the part of US policy makers get them into so much trouble.
Andrew Swallow
<http://www.congoresources.com/2009/06/china-comes-to-africa-on-chinese-terms.html>
Andrew Swallow
Jim Yanik
Hah,the *UN* defending Human Rights? Hard to believe.
Particularly using ChiCom troops,Red China not having a good record on
their own human rights.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
PaPa Peng
>
> I don't see China - any form of China - successfully bringing the
> majority of their population up to North American or Western European
> living standards any time soon. And I don't believe they have time to do
> it before they are faced with too many other problems. The extent to
> which they spend on their military is, I think, somewhat irrelevant;
> spending more will somewhat hasten the crises.
>
Good lord NO. China will never and must never aspire to the wasteful
lavish lifestyle of the West. This will be ecologically unsustainable
and ruinous to China and to the world. China has more than double the
population (>1.3 billion) of the US (300 millions) and Europe (320
millions?) combined. Look around you right now. Can you picture an
average Chinese household having the same possessions? For a Chinese
household to have the same things will mean resources the poor
countries of the rest of the world will not have. It will mean
resources you will not have either for resources are finite and the
trend is that your standard of living will be lower to meet China
risein the middle somewhere. China is doing an excellent job managing
her development (low inflation, adequate investment, good security,
etc.) Do not judge China's methods and achievements using yourselves
as the ideal model. Even you don't quite like yourselves these days.
Jim Yanik
SF,no great loss....
I think they'd want to hit LA first.
Hmm,no great loss their,either...
doesn't Vandenburg AFB have an ABM site? Could the Alaska site defend SF?
Andrew Swallow
>> China's most likely enemy are the African countries.
>> ................. The politicians will get
>> greedy and want more than bribes, so try repeating the same trick.
>> The West did not need African raw materials but China does.
>> To keep the resources China will have to use force.
>>
> Point 1. African warlords are not stupid. They don't kill the goose
> (Chinese investments) that lays the golden eggs. No goose no gold
> eggs kapisch? The Chinese copper mine in Afghanistan operates without
> probloem while outside the mine a full scale insurgency by Islamic
> militants is going on. Same in Somalia.
The hole in that story is that many of the mines now been run by
Chinese in Africa used to be Western mines. The locals took them
over but were unable to run the mines. Since they do not consider
nationalisation evil they will repeat the trick. See loans to
South American countries.
Arved Sandstrom
>> Sure, there's a thin veneer of more
>> sophisticated behaviour, but in general you've got a few centuries
>> catching up to do.
>
> Done that in 30 years. Go google any social and economic subject on
> China. The number of superlatives is sickening. Go to any public
> library or the magazine rack at a large book store. Same sickening
> over abundance of articles on why China is or has over taken the US.
> Go to world history section in the same bookstore to read thick books
> on China. Some are good. Many are rehash compilations of the
> magazine articles. You can tell because the examples they give are
> already outdated by the frenetic pace of events happening in China.
> But none of the books dismiss China as a backward, poor and unstable
> giant that is going to disintegrate at any moment. Simple reason.
> Such books don't sell for a good reason. Its contrarian to the
> evidence everyone can see for themselves except for brain dead Cold
> War warriors like you.
This is not Cold War rhetoric. The majority of the Chinese population is
still very poor and rural. Unemployment is a huge problem. Right now the
Chinese economy is built up on manufacturing, heavy and light both...the
current solution to all those millions of unemployed peasants is to
shove them into light manufacturing.
There are two China's, and I don't mean the mainland and Taiwan. There's
a prosperous boomtown China that engages a small minority of the
population, and a backward poor China that is comprised of most of the
people. You can talk up the small prosperous minority all you like, but
until China solves the structural problems it has now I wouldn't be
talking it up too much.
> I don't need to engage in a pissing match in this newsgroup. Unless
> you are independently wealthy, successfully self employed or are
> retired and have a good pension your job is already on the line and so
> is the profitability of the company that employs you. And you want
> to rattle sabers against a power you are so desperate to get on your
> side as a G2 partner? Hint. Won't happen. G20 however is fine. You
> can try to get them on your side and their aggregate numbers are
> bigger than China's. G19 ex-China is worthwhile counterweight to
> China to nurture. Hint #2. Won't happen either. Everyone in the
> G19 (G20 less the US) is looking for ways to reduce their reserves
> held in USD. It also means that they are seeking to reduce their
> overall engagement with the US. The US will remain a major power, but
> as one of a handful.
See my above. The Chinese economy right now is manufacturing, light and
heavy. Steel, coal, lumber, oil -> ships, furniture, consumer goods,
concrete etc. All good industries to suck up lots and lots and lots of
workers. But you guys are a ways from moving into the next-generation
economies where the West has already been for decades.
Reliance on manufacturing also makes you very susceptible to global or
regional depressions. Crow all you like about US workers losing jobs,
but if US workers can't afford to buy that cheap plastic crap you guys
make then a lot of Chinese peasants are going to go back to begging in
downtown China.
> Pres. Obama took a better part of a month to leak that he may send
> 34,000 troops to Afghanistan. This mini surge is only for holding the
> supply line, hopefully. That war is unwinnable and is grinding down
> the US-allied forces. And this by an irregular peasant force that
> has only basic man portable weapons against the mightiest war machine
> this planet has ever seen? You should get your ABCs right first.
Well, sure the US military is having problems in Afghanistan. In fact
probably any external force would. But if we're going to toss insults
around, why don't we look at the fact that Americans, British, Japanese,
Manchurians and Vietnamese, among others, have routinely kicked Chinese
ass? Are you suggesting that the PLA would do better?
AHS
Jack Linthicum
> Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote innews:2Wo*Rc...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <7791d23a-1611-4ed3-a584-040bca6c8...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Jack Linthicum
> Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote innews:2Wo*Rc...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <7791d23a-1611-4ed3-a584-040bca6c8...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry, hit the wrong button.
Anything from China will be over the pole and into the Midwest and
East. Anything trying for the Coast would be along latitude 45 or so.
PaPa Peng
> PaPa Peng wrote:
> >> PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
>
> > Bow taken. I haven't paid much attention to PLAN submarines. As you
> > said they are not leading edge types and are diesel powered at that.
>
> Then they should be quieter than the nukes.
>
> That they're not is very telling.
>
Billy Black must be one of the most idiotic armchair warriors I have
come across. When you have an enemy sub right infront of your
doorstep you take it out with the most effective, and that includes
cost effectiveness, available.
Read this carefully " A 535 ft Seawolf attack
sub is very vulnerable in (remarkably constant globally) 460 ft
continental shelf waters. "
This means that the attack sub cannot even dive without risking
hitting the seafloor. It cannot move at high underwater speed for the
same reason, and also because speed will generate surface pressure
waves that will say "Hey, I am a USN nuclear sub here." (USN has no
conventional subs). The Chinese response will be to send fixed winged
bombers as well as ASW helicopters to sink this USN captain's folly.
ASW Ships will follow. The Chinese continental shelf varies from 100
miles to over 250 miles. That is a lot of shallow water to transit
before reaching the safety of deep water. What is the USN sub doing
in shallow waters anyway. To sink ships and starve China? To get the
submariner's ultimate orgasm - sink a Chinese sub in a one to one?
Pulleeese. Go read some more up to date comics. This also addresses
the question. What strategic mission does a Chinese submarine force
fulfill? It is more efficient to use land based defenses for the USN
threat just described The idea of an underwater sub cat and mouse
game is ridiculous romanticism. PLAN boomers if China ever goes that
route have plenty of places to hide on its continental shelf to avoid
US first strike capability. I stand by my earlier statement that
China has no clear strategic role for a submarine force that she would
want to invest in building one beyond the current in-training and
strategy development role.
PaPa Peng
> Wrong. China already has 'security guards' (= troops) there.
>
> Andrew Swallow- =
The Chinese guards are there to guard against the local guards and
militia. If there is a firefight amongst the locals there will be a
massacare committed on the unarmed Chinese technical teams if there is
no armed Chinese guard. Also even if the local guards are from the
friendly warlord what is there to prevent them from extorting from the
Chinese or deserting their posts when there is trouble? The Chinese
and their Chinese guards cannot freely go outside their encampments.
and cannot interfere in local affairs. For example in Iraq where the
Chinese have been given a development permit to drill for oil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8263218.stm the local Iraqis never see the
Chinese oil workers who are isolated behind a fenced guarded compound.
William Black
> On Nov 23, 5:05 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> PaPa Peng wrote:
>>>> PaPa will dispute that and claim they are excellent.
>>> Bow taken. I haven't paid much attention to PLAN submarines. As you
>>> said they are not leading edge types and are diesel powered at that.
>> Then they should be quieter than the nukes.
>>
>> That they're not is very telling.
>>
>
> Billy Black must be one of the most idiotic armchair warriors I have
> come across. When you have an enemy sub right infront of your
> doorstep you take it out with the most effective, and that includes
> cost effectiveness, available.
I'm not talking about any hypothetical US submarine.
I'm talking about the technical shortcomings of Chinese submarines.
Nobody is ever going to launch some sort of naval attack in the littoral
next to China, that would be suicidal.
They'll just sit out at sea, probably a very long way from the Chinese
coast, and sink stuff coming past them, that's what submarines do...
The Chinese submarines will have to be used to try and stop this, but
they appear to be very noisy...
A noisy submarine is a dead submarine...
Arved Sandstrom
ecological disaster for all 6 billion+ human beings now, and 10 billion
not so far down the road, and so on and so forth, to live the way I and
my girlfriend do, for example. And I'm an apartment dweller - nice
apartment, but still an apartment. If everyone wanted a detached house
with 2 cars we'd really be in trouble.
I also agree that we need to reduce our material expectations in the
West. Lots of stuff does not make for quality of life, and as you
suggest, it's also only fair that as the less fortunate world (most of
it) moves up the scale somewhat in material possessions, that we in
Europe and North America scale down.
The only part where I disagree with you is in seeing this happen. Most
people in the West *like* having stuff. Lots of stuff. And people that
don't have that stuff aspire to having it - human nature. I think you'll
neither see the better off voluntarily downsizing their material
lifestyles nor will you see the majority of the with-outs voluntarily
relinquish their dreams of possessing it. We see all those pictures of
Chinese suburbs too...the ones that look eerily like the suburban sprawl
that bedevils us in North America. So it sure looks to me like Chinese -
leastways lots of Chinese - are *not* prepared to settle for a simple life.
AHS
Mark Borgerson
am.sw...@btopenworld.com says...
You still have to get rid of a lot of heat---that probably means
a coolant pump.
>
> Andrew Swallow
>
Mark Borgerson
Andrew Swallow
must be some way of getting the heat to pump the cooling water itself.
Andrew Swallow
tankfixer
@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, papa...@gmail.com says...
> China has supercarriers now.
hogwash.
dump...@hotmail.com
PaPa Peng
> I'm not talking about any hypothetical US submarine.
>
> I'm talking about the technical shortcomings of Chinese submarines.
>
> Nobody is ever going to launch some sort of naval attack in the littoral
> next to China, that would be suicidal.
>
> They'll just sit out at sea, probably a very long way from the Chinese
> coast, and sink stuff coming past them, that's what submarines do...
>
> The Chinese submarines will have to be used to try and stop this, but
> they appear to be very noisy...
>
> A noisy submarine is a dead submarine...
Prithee for what purpose would a Chinese sub have to sail out yonder?
The few bloody torpedoes it carries cannot change anything in a
general war and can get herself killed (by a surface ASW force) for no
purpose. A Chinese sub's first duty is to protect inshore shipping
and onshore facilities. Its also common sense to be protected by
onshore defenses. Frankly its a wasteful misallocation of resources
to field a sub for these duties. Thus my contention that a Chinese
submarine force has no real useful role other than maintain capability
until such a role is found.
Same faulty reasoning of yours to propose a US nuke attack sub to lurk
outside Chinese waters. Those attack subs are to shadow and sink
enemy boomers in time of a nuclear war. They carry nuclear tipped
missiles, mines and torpedoes (with rocket boosted airborne portion to
get it to target before re-entering water to attack) to blow up the
nuclear armed SLBM boomers before they can launch. In the process the
launch sub may be blown up by its own nuclear device along with the
enemy. That's how serious their mission is. There'll be none of this
childish nonsense about sneaking up on a noisy sub or even a noisy
boomer to sink it by torpedo.
PaPa Peng
>
> This is not Cold War rhetoric. The majority of the Chinese population is
> still very poor and rural. Unemployment is a huge problem. Right now the
> Chinese economy is built up on manufacturing, heavy and light both...the
> current solution to all those millions of unemployed peasants is to
> shove them into light manufacturing.
>
> There are two China's, and I don't mean the mainland and Taiwan. There's
> a prosperous boomtown China that engages a small minority of the
> population, and a backward poor China that is comprised of most of the
> people. You can talk up the small prosperous minority all you like, but
> until China solves the structural problems it has now I wouldn't be
> talking it up too much.
Go to The ECONOMIST's current series on China. This commentary from
"watchingchina" answers many of your rebuttals.
http://www.economist.com/node/14901104/comments?page=12 Read the
article and the many other readers' comments.
(start quote) watchingchina wrote: Nov 24th 2009 China is doing all
the right things to protect itself and its economy, just as the US and
other countries do. Many times in the past, and today in the present,
the US is severely depreciating its own currency for its own
advantage. But it's telling China that's a bad thing to do.
The US steadfastly refuses to admit that it is the cause of all its
own misfortune, and in every case uses political and even military
pressure to make other countries bear the pain for its recklessness
and bad management.
An RMB revaluation today would unquestionable be harmful to the
recovery of the world's economy. It's first and most immediate result
would be to raise prices in all Western countries and help to reduce
consumer demand. It would create an immediate inflationary shock to
all those economies, something not welcome at the moment.
The real trouble today is not a weak RMB but a weak US dollar that is
being kept weak by a zero interest rate. It is very much creating a
carry trade and risks creating asset bubbles in other countries. China
is right to react to this.
China is also right to repeg its currency to protect itself against
severe losses. It lent the US a trillion dollars, then saw the US
depreciate the dollar by 30%. If China hadn't repegged, they would
have lost more than 300 billion dollars.
It's easy for commenters here to tell China to revalue, but if it were
your money at risk, a revaluation is the last thing you would do.
When the US forced the Plaza Accord onto Japan, the Yen rose from 240
to 120 - it DOUBLED in three years; but the US trade deficits with
Japan continued to increase. China revalued the RMB by about 25%
during the past few years, but the US trade deficits continued to
increase.
Once again, structural defects in an economy CANNOT be addressed
through exchange rates.
On the supply side, 70% of the US economy is services; only about 10%
is manufacturing, and most of that is arms and weapons, aircraft,
autos and machinery, petroleum and food products. There are almost no
consumer goods made in the US.
On the supply side, 70% of the US economy is dependent on consumer
demand; less than 20% is corporate investment. Some of that demand is
met by services but the bulk must be met by goods. When Americans go
to the malls to shop, what will they buy? Stinger missiles? A new
Boeing 737?
Virtually all goods in US shops are imported; it doesn't matter from
where. This is the cause of the trade deficits, and in fact the US has
run consistent trade deficits with more than 60 countries for the past
20 years. The cause is the structural defects in the US economy, not
others exporting too much. By contrast, China runs deficits with most
of its trading partners; the US is the main exception.
It is true today that the US makes almost nothing that other countries
want to buy, but China, Japan, Germany and many others make many
things that Americans want to buy. The US is full of imported autos;
list the countries that import US cars. Revaluing the RMB will not
change any of the above.
The US economy is far too dependent on weapons and services, and far
too dependent on consumer spending, and especially on credit-fuelled
consumption and zero savings. Nothing will improve until all that
changes, and the first result will be at least a 30% drop in the US
standard of living. That is the reality.
The comments about a revalued RMB 'raising the standard of living' in
China or 'boosting their purchasing power' are nonsense. China is
already the largest buyer of Western luxury goods in the world, and
shops here are full of Western products. There is no shortage of
customers, and retail sales here have increased 18% so far this year.
BailoutNation wrote an excellent and accurate commentary: Nov 18th
2009 11:16 GMT that is worth reading, but too much of the commentary
here is uninformed drivel. I'm sorry to say this, but the comments by
"Yimingxiaren" particularly are psychotic at best and appear to
originate on another planet.
All readers should be aware that China is doing nothing that is bad or
evil or wrong, or that is poor economics. China is not 'beggaring'
anybody. They are in fact behaving quite responsibly and are
protecting both the world recovery and their own economy. They have a
right to do that. China has no obligation to destroy itself just to
help the US pay for its sins - as Japan was forced to do. (end quote)
------------------------------------------------------
> See my above. The Chinese economy right now is manufacturing, light and
> heavy. Steel, coal, lumber, oil -> ships, furniture, consumer goods,
> concrete etc. All good industries to suck up lots and lots and lots of
> workers. But you guys are a ways from moving into the next-generation
> economies where the West has already been for decades.
So what is there to prevent you guys picking up where you left off.?
Provide ordinary jobs for your millions of unemployed and get out of
the death spiral you are in. Starting a war to fix a deep recession
is no longer your option. The important things in life are enough to
eat, warm shelter, a means to earn enough to pay for them, and
security that these will not disappear the next day. The reality of
what life is like without these basics have hit millions of your
people of late and your leaders have no plan on how to get out of this
deep hole.
China's economic advantage has been evident only the past ten years.
More than any one else every Chinese is well aware that the world can
change overnight and not necessarily for the better. That's why every
one is working so hard to get ahead while the sun still shines. When
the world does crash the roads, the railways, the communications
infrastructure, the ports, the power generation capacity, the
irrigation and so on and so forth will have been built and running.
The country can carry on on her internal momentum. They will remain
working smoothly until the conditions improve. We will hit the road
running from where we last left off. Don't you worry about us.
Everything we do is fully budgeted for before we start. They will be
completed on or ahead of time and within budget. We don't do
borrowings to build. A guy who is poor but has no debt is much richer
than a rich man with unbearable debts. That's the trouble with your
western economies.
>
> Reliance on manufacturing also makes you very susceptible to global or
> regional depressions. Crow all you like about US workers losing jobs,
> but if US workers can't afford to buy that cheap plastic crap you guys
> make then a lot of Chinese peasants are going to go back to begging in
> downtown China.
If we (China) make the wrong decisions then we will have to pay the
price. China had always been too big for anyone outside to do
anything for her anyway. There's no guarantee of unbroken success.
Following your advice (World Bank, IMF, your expensive consultants,
think tanks) will certainly be the death of China.
>
> Well, sure the US military is having problems in Afghanistan. In fact
> probably any external force would. But if we're going to toss insults
> around, why don't we look at the fact that Americans, British, Japanese,
> Manchurians and Vietnamese, among others, have routinely kicked Chinese
> ass? Are you suggesting that the PLA would do better?
>
The difference is that we learned the right lessons. Get our house in
order first. Then get even. One more. Don't make unecessary enemies.
Keith Willshaw
"PaPa Peng" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f756342e-c668-4aad...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> A noisy submarine is a dead submarine...
Only if the enemy has a credible ASW force, ASW is a hard skill
to acquire.
> Prithee for what purpose would a Chinese sub have to sail out yonder?
> The few bloody torpedoes it carries cannot change anything in a
> general war and can get herself killed (by a surface ASW force) for no
> purpose.
Tell that to the Japanese. US Submarines changed a lot in the general war
they had with the USA.
> A Chinese sub's first duty is to protect inshore shipping
> and onshore facilities.
Pray tell how does it protect inshore shipping from air attack
or surface ships with sea skimming missiles ?
> Its also common sense to be protected by
> onshore defenses.
Onshore defences have proved rather ineffective at such duties.
> Frankly its a wasteful misallocation of resources
> to field a sub for these duties.
Attack submarines are sea denial weapons, their major role is to deny or
at the very least make expensive the use of sea borne communications
by an enemy.
> Thus my contention that a Chinese
> submarine force has no real useful role other than maintain capability
> until such a role is found.
> Same faulty reasoning of yours to propose a US nuke attack sub to lurk
> outside Chinese waters. Those attack subs are to shadow and sink
> enemy boomers in time of a nuclear war.
That is ONE role of an SSN. They are also very capable killers of
surface ships both military and civilian. The very threat of an SSN can
drive a less capable navy back to port , see Argentina 1962.
> They carry nuclear tipped missiles, mines and torpedoes (with rocket
> boosted
> airborne portion to get it to target before re-entering water to attack)
> to blow up the
> nuclear armed SLBM boomers before they can launch.
The weapons used against enemy vessels are NOT typically equipped
with nuclear warheads.
> In the process the launch sub may be blown up by its own nuclear device
> along
> with the enemy. That's how serious their mission is. There'll be none of
> this
> childish nonsense about sneaking up on a noisy sub or even a noisy
> boomer to sink it by torpedo.
Which will come as a great surprise to those who stalked noisy
soviet submarines during the cold war.
Keith
William Black
>> I'm not talking about any hypothetical US submarine.
>>
>> I'm talking about the technical shortcomings of Chinese submarines.
>>
>> Nobody is ever going to launch some sort of naval attack in the littoral
>> next to China, that would be suicidal.
>>
>> They'll just sit out at sea, probably a very long way from the Chinese
>> coast, and sink stuff coming past them, that's what submarines do...
>>
>> The Chinese submarines will have to be used to try and stop this, but
>> they appear to be very noisy...
>>
>> A noisy submarine is a dead submarine...
>
>
> Prithee for what purpose would a Chinese sub have to sail out yonder?
Going after the submarines that are sinking Chinese merchant shipping.
> The few bloody torpedoes it carries cannot change anything in a
> general war and can get herself killed (by a surface ASW force) for no
> purpose. A Chinese sub's first duty is to protect inshore shipping
> and onshore facilities.
Submarines don't protect anything.
They sink stuff.
Its also common sense to be protected by
> onshore defenses. Frankly its a wasteful misallocation of resources
> to field a sub for these duties. Thus my contention that a Chinese
> submarine force has no real useful role other than maintain capability
> until such a role is found.
Building (or buying) warships for which there is no purpose is stupid.
> Same faulty reasoning of yours to propose a US nuke attack sub to lurk
> outside Chinese waters. Those attack subs are to shadow and sink
> enemy boomers in time of a nuclear war.
Well...
No...
They carry nuclear tipped
> missiles, mines and torpedoes (with rocket boosted airborne portion to
> get it to target before re-entering water to attack) to blow up the
> nuclear armed SLBM boomers before they can launch.
Well...
No...
They can but they're a lot more versatile than that.
In the process the
> launch sub may be blown up by its own nuclear device along with the
> enemy.
Helpless giggles...
That's how serious their mission is. There'll be none of this
> childish nonsense about sneaking up on a noisy sub or even a noisy
> boomer to sink it by torpedo.
You still don't get it do you.
Look, the purpose of submarines is to sink stuff.
They do this by finding stuff to sink where it's safe for them to do so,
so they lurk in the shipping lanes and sink what they want to.
Now assuming they lurk in the Indian Ocean and sink, say, Chinese bound
oil tankers.
What does China do about it?
Jeff Dougherty
> They carry nuclear tipped
> missiles, mines and torpedoes (with rocket boosted airborne portion to
> get it to target before re-entering water to attack) to blow up the
> nuclear armed SLBM boomers before they can launch. In the process the
> launch sub may be blown up by its own nuclear device along with the
> enemy. That's how serious their mission is.
U.S. submarines haven't carried nuclear-tipped torpedoes since 1976,
when the Mark 45 ASTOR was withdrawn from service. The rocket-
assisted system you describe was SUBROC, which was withdrawn in 1989-
the follow on system, Sea Lance, was canceled while still in
development. SSBN hunting is indeed one potential mission of the
attack submarine, but it's not the only one by a long shot- and
regardless of what they're doing, US SSNs haven't carried nukes for
ASW work for twenty years.
> There'll be none of this
> childish nonsense about sneaking up on a noisy sub or even a noisy
> boomer to sink it by torpedo.
How do you imagine they sink their targets?
And you still haven't answered the original question. In a
conventional or limited war scenario, American SSNs start sinking oil
tankers and resource carriers from Africa bound for China while still
a 500-600 miles off the Chinese coast. What can China going to do
about it?
-JTD
PaPa Peng
>
> Tell that to the Japanese. US Submarines changed a lot in the general war
> they had with the USA.
>
That's the whole trouble with armchair warriors. I'm one too. The
difference is you are still refighting WWII. I prefer to think ahead
on how to avoid a general WWIII. Only the US is still thinking war is
a good way to solve her problems. You are losing the current contest
to China in econo-socio-political fields so bomb her. My arguments
will be that you do not have any options to fight little bully wars
with China. And China's military modernization is to make more
certain you don't. Its the big kahuna or nothing. In the big kahuna
both the US and China will be severely damaged but will survive. But
in this brave new world Russia will be intact and posess the biggest
and meanest nuclear arsenal on this planet. Both the US and China
would have used up their nukes. Even if the US still has more you
will be in no position to resist a Russian ultimatum to cease and
desist. The rest of the world will certainly support the Russian
position if only for their own survival. Once Russia becomes the
global hagemon there will not be anyone to challenge her power.
There are only three natural superpowers in our world. A tripod is a
very stable equilibrium. Each is too large in geography for an enemy
to conquer. Each is too large to totally destroy with any number of
nukes. The nuclear fallout from existing nukes will make the whole
planet uninhabitable. Thus my confidence that China is now
effectively immune from conventional and nuclear attack. She does not
need to spend an inordinate amount of her GDP on armanents. She can
concentrate on policies and programs that will improve the lives of
her peoples. Even you agree that China is still a very poor country.
Since most of the rest of the world is even poorer than China, China's
solutions to alleviate poverty will find far more resonance with them
than Western neo-imperialism. This is the real battle for hearts and
minds, not democracy and human rights at the point of a gun and bombs
from drones. Hollywood and coca cola ain't it either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you westerners are pretty ignorant about the rest of the world.
Take a look at the globe, not a map. A globe gives you a good idea of
the size of each country, their geographical size and their
geographical relationship with each other. Look at China's
hinterland. It abuts Russia and the energy rich Central Asian
states. Pipelines already run from them into China and more are under
construction. In general China is largely self-sufficient in food,
minerals and much else. She has a continental sized internal
economy. Her economic engagement with the rest of the world is very
recent, only the last two decades or so. Shutting herself up again is
no big deal. She won't starve and her economy won't fall apart. In
this kind of contest everyone else will run out of oxygen first before
China starts to feel the pain.
On this thread armchair warriors boast about how advanced US
submarines can sink Chinese ships. No big deal. China can replace
them anytime. Important ships are too big to sink anyway and their
crews very minimal at risk. Say sink a few ships and the chances are
the sub will be sunk in return. Can you afford to lose two high
skilled sub crews (2 needed for rotation) on such insignificant
targets?
hcobb
wrote:
> China has no way of projecting their military power into Africa.
China is already projecting military force off the east coast of
Africa.
This is because the Americans are tolerating the Chinese mission.
They could not do so over American, or even Indian, objections.
-HJC
PaPa Peng
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 1:57 am, PaPa Peng <papape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They carry nuclear tipped
> > missiles, mines and torpedoes (with rocket boosted airborne portion to
> > get it to target before re-entering water to attack) to blow up the
> > nuclear armed SLBM boomers before they can launch. In the process the
> > launch sub may be blown up by its own nuclear device along with the
> > enemy. That's how serious their mission is.
>
> U.S. submarines haven't carried nuclear-tipped torpedoes since 1976,
> when the Mark 45 ASTOR was withdrawn from service. The rocket-
> assisted system you describe was SUBROC, which was withdrawn in 1989-
> the follow on system, Sea Lance, was canceled while still in
> development. SSBN hunting is indeed one potential mission of the
> attack submarine, but it's not the only one by a long shot- and
> regardless of what they're doing, US SSNs haven't carried nukes for
> ASW work for twenty years.
There has not been any nuclear threat for just as long. You don't
carry dangerous weapons for which there is no likely threat. ICBMs
are different in that they are meant to maintain deterrence not
attack.
>
> > There'll be none of this
> > childish nonsense about sneaking up on a noisy sub or even a noisy
> > boomer to sink it by torpedo.
>
> How do you imagine they sink their targets?
Your objective is to embargo shipping. If your navy is as powerful as
you say wouldn't it be easier to station a carrier or more likely
smaller warships along the sealanes to embargo shipping? The PLAN
isn't going to send out a ship to fight one to one. Using a sub is a
misuse of an expensive resource. There is also this problem of
torpedoing a VLCC. The oil pollution wouldn't make you any friends
from anyone who has a seashore. They are also hard to sink. There
was a Foreign Affairs article on terrorist attacks (explosive laden
suicide boat) on tankers (high concentration in gulf state waters)
and the conclusion was tankers are quite immune from this form of
attac (too big and crude doesn't burn easily.) Large container ships
travel empty to China. Their large size makes them practically
impossible to sink.
>
> And you still haven't answered the original question. In a
> conventional or limited war scenario, American SSNs start sinking oil
> tankers and resource carriers from Africa bound for China while still
> a 500-600 miles off the Chinese coast. What can China going to do
> about it?
>
> -JTD
See my other reply about Russian and Central Asian energy pipelines.
China also has her own oil and gas fields. Much of the resource rich
empty provinces (Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia) have still not been
fully explored yet. So you start shooting. We lose a few. No big
deal. They can be easily replaced. But can you live with the
consequences of starting a shooting war over trvial issues?
William Black
> On Nov 24, 10:38 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> China has no way of projecting their military power into Africa.
>
> China is already projecting military force off the east coast of
> Africa.
Not realistically as far as anyone can see.
They've managed, with great efforts it seems, to get two of their most
modern destroyers into the area, one anti aircraft and one anti surface
ship, and a supply ship as well.
If this were a Russian force everyone would be muttering about the
inevitable SSN lurking under the supply ship that would make it a
balanced force...
But the Han class are clapped out, noisy and just about at the end of
their service life, and with well known reliability issues almost
certainly aren't capable of a long cruise in strange waters.
They've only managed to get a couple of the Type 93 to float in the past
seven or eight years so the chances are that there isn't one of them
around either, although if there is I imagine the navies of the world
(and especially the US Navy and the Indian Navy) are busy training their
sonar operators how to spot it...
> This is because the Americans are tolerating the Chinese mission.
More likely welcoming it.
What better chance to get hold of their electronic profile and an
insight into operating procedures.
> They could not do so over American, or even Indian, objections.
Well yes, but they're 'playing pirates' and it would be churlish to
turn them away.
But as I said earlier, most of the world's navies will be using it as
a training opportunity...
This is the first chance the Indian Navy has had of getting up close to
their only real potential serious opponent.
William Black
> Your objective is to embargo shipping. If your navy is as powerful as
> you say wouldn't it be easier to station a carrier or more likely
> smaller warships along the sealanes to embargo shipping? The PLAN
> isn't going to send out a ship to fight one to one. Using a sub is a
> misuse of an expensive resource.
The submarines are there for that job, carriers have a different job.
Plus a torpedo is a lot cheaper than a carrier...
There is also this problem of
> torpedoing a VLCC. The oil pollution wouldn't make you any friends
> from anyone who has a seashore.
Take it from me, nobody will care...
They are also hard to sink. There
> was a Foreign Affairs article on terrorist attacks (explosive laden
> suicide boat) on tankers (high concentration in gulf state waters)
> and the conclusion was tankers are quite immune from this form of
> attac (too big and crude doesn't burn easily.) Large container ships
> travel empty to China. Their large size makes them practically
> impossible to sink.
Modern torpedoes are designed to break a ship's back.
The explosion, as I understand it, both produces shock waves that does
internal damage to the ship and produces a large cavity under it into
which the ship falls and destroys itself with its own weight.
Assuming the thing doesn't sink, it'll be badly broken up and will have
no machinery working
Keith Willshaw
>
>>
>> Tell that to the Japanese. US Submarines changed a lot in the general war
>> they had with the USA.
>>
>
> That's the whole trouble with armchair warriors. I'm one too. The
> difference is you are still refighting WWII. I prefer to think ahead
> on how to avoid a general WWIII. Only the US is still thinking war is
> a good way to solve her problems. You are losing the current contest
> to China in econo-socio-political fields so bomb her.
1) I am not American
2) I dont think war is a good solution
3) I wish China well
> My arguments
> will be that you do not have any options to fight little bully wars
> with China. And China's military modernization is to make more
> certain you don't. Its the big kahuna or nothing. In the big kahuna
> both the US and China will be severely damaged but will survive.
My concern is with your fantasies about submarines not politics.
Keith
PaPa Peng
> My concern is with your fantasies about submarines not politics.
>
> Keith
You should ID each post as to authorship. I for one don't believe
there is any real role for a PLAN submarine force. That's hardly a
fantasy about submarines. I don't believe there is a role for USN
submarines to threaten China either. The USN sub force is the third
leg (US Strategic Air Force, ICBM, SLBM) of the nuclear deterrance
against the former USSR's nuclear forces. They are not desiged for
nor tasked for naval blockade duties much less play cat and mouse with
Chinese submarines off China. The PLAN is not that stupid to provide
one-on-one sub jousts with the USN. In time of hostilities any
unfriendly sub off China will be attacked by land based airborne
forces. The commonsensical thing for the hostile sub will then be to
stay as far offshore as possible, perhaps over deep oceanic waters.
Since China's continental shelf varies from 100 miles to >250 miles
this will be a considerable distance off China and not a threat to
Chinese shipping or land based assets.
The role for the PLAN sub force in my opinion is to maintain a core of
submariners should there arise a time when such a force has a well
defined role in China's defense. Their role is also to provide
targets to train shipborne and airborne ASW forces. But there won't
be a buildup of a PLAN sub force symetrical to the USN's or the
Russian one.
Keith Willshaw
>
>> My concern is with your fantasies about submarines not politics.
>>
>> Keith
>
> You should ID each post as to authorship.
I do, my email address is attached, the .co.uk bit is a clue
Keith
William Black
The USN sub force is the third
> leg (US Strategic Air Force, ICBM, SLBM) of the nuclear deterrance
> against the former USSR's nuclear forces. They are not desiged for
> nor tasked for naval blockade duties much less play cat and mouse with
> Chinese submarines off China.
You just don't understand do you.
The vast majority of US submarines are not capable of firing ballistic
missiles.
Richard Casady
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They are also hard to sink. There
>was a Foreign Affairs article on terrorist attacks (explosive laden
>suicide boat) on tankers (high concentration in gulf state waters)
>and the conclusion was tankers are quite immune from this form of
>attac (too big and crude doesn't burn easily.) Large container ships
>travel empty to China. Their large size makes them practically
>impossible to sink.
Crude doesn't burn easily? So called light crude is about 25%
gasoline. Needless to say, it ignites very easily.
As for container ships, there is no subdivision like a warship. One
torpedo is all it takes. You think the pumps will keep up with a
twenty foot hole?
Casady
dott.Piergiorgio
>> They are also hard to sink. There
>> was a Foreign Affairs article on terrorist attacks (explosive laden
>> suicide boat) on tankers (high concentration in gulf state waters)
>> and the conclusion was tankers are quite immune from this form of
>> attac (too big and crude doesn't burn easily.) Large container ships
>> travel empty to China. Their large size makes them practically
>> impossible to sink.
>
> Crude doesn't burn easily? So called light crude is about 25%
> gasoline. Needless to say, it ignites very easily.
AS IJN learns the hard way in the Marianas battle.....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Keith Willshaw
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:X4DPm.46127$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
I dont think many of the fires there were fed by crude oil, that
was aviation gasoline.
Keith
Richard Casady
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I dont think many of the fires there were fed by crude oil, that
>was aviation gasoline.
The IJN used Borneo crude for boiler fuel. It still had the gasoline
in it.
Casady
David E. Powell
the keel.
Keith Willshaw
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7t6ug5pmf74959odn...@4ax.com...
True of all crude oil, the fact is that most of the burning in the
battle of the Phillipine Sea was done by the avgas in the aircraft being
shot
down and the carriers sunk. We know that the torpedoes that hit Taiho
and Shokaku ruptured the avgas tanks which combined with poor
damage control led to the fires and explosions that ripped them apart.
The air attacks on Hiyo also produced large fires fed by avgas and
lead to he loss.
Keith
Peter Stickney
> Roger Conroy wrote:
>
>> Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels
>> by definition don't have.
>
> And also the steam turbines, especially their gearboxes.
>
>> The cooling pumps must run 24/7 even if the sub is not moving. Only a
>> cold dead unfueled reactor doesn't need cooling and that is not
>> suposed to ever happen outside of a dockyard.
>
> I've read a number of stories of SSNs turning off their cooling pumps
> and relying on natural convection when running at low speeds, maybe 4
> knots. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that SSBNs run this way all the
> time when on station, since I'm sure they patrol at comparable speed.
>
> The US built at least one SSN, Narwal, with a natural-circulation
> reactor.
IIRC, Narwal also had a large-diameter low speed turbine - No gearbox,
either.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system.
Ray O'Hara
>> ===================================================================
>> planes leave bases in the central US to bomb in the middle east and then
>> they return to the usa, one long non-stop flight.
>> . in flight refueling gives the USAF global reach.
>
>
> You are talking about an 18 to 20 hour mission. Over China it takes
> something like 8 hours to transit east/west and six hours north/
> south. That's plenty much hostile territory to remain over. A phone
> call to the next airbase up your flight path will allow them to set up
> a real rip roaring welcome party.
>
> China's "workshop of the world" facilities are indeed mostly in the
> seaboard but now spreading to inner China provinces. Wuhan and
> Chongqing are in the order of 20000 and 3000 miles up the Yangtze and
> they are enormous manufacturing regions. Civilian factories are all
> over the landscape. Military production facilities are something
> else. They are a holdover from Mao's era where China's critical
> production facilities were built far inland and were hardened against
> nuclear weapons. Their locations are unknown and certainly not amid
> the regular commercial factories. That is to say critical armaments
> production targets are spread out over hundreds of miles in remote
> mountainous terrain. Long range bombing to locate and attack those
> will surely get you killed without you achieving any of your
> objectives.
The U.S.A is larger than China. its 2780 miles from NYC to LA
Arved Sandstrom
They are effectively the same in land area. Even given different
consideration of disputed PRC territories, the largest difference in
land area between the two is less than one percent.
AHS
David E. Powell
a keystone to the world semiconductor and computer industry.
I think a lot of people who use high end phones every day on the go,
use computers at work, and work within the internet economy don't
realize how key Taiwan is to all of that.
Of course, it would be nice if the US could help boost up Taiwan's
defenses, but I wonder if anyone in Washington D.C. is in a position
to do that right now. Some more Destroyers, patrol aircraft and subs
of their own would be a good thing to keep the balance there, or maybe
restore somf of it at least.
Certainly the Japanese focus a lot on Antisubmarine warfare. I would
guess China is a bit higher on their list of concerns than Russia
right now.
Political reasons aside, Japan might be able to use some SSNs if they
could get their hands on them. I am certain their shipbuilders could
produce some if called upon to do so.
David
hcobb
> Hint: Super Hornets have roughly equivalent combat radius to an F-35C
> on internal fuel. The difference is that the Super Bug can hang
> almost a thousand extra gallons of gas on external pylons. If you do
> that on an F-35 you might as well have bought several of the cheaper
> Super Bugs in the first place.
You must have the F/A-18 confused with some sort of F-15 Fred.
There's a big difference between 390 nm and 650 nm.
-HJC
Andrew Swallow
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> :Roger Conroy wrote:
> :> "vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message
> :> news:hef169$3q1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> :>> "Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :>> news:Xns9CCC82BEA2AADts...@130.133.1.4...
> :>>> Roger Conroy wrote:
> :>>>
> :>>>> Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels
> :>>>> by definition don't have.
> :>>> And also the steam turbines, especially their gearboxes.
> :>>
> :>> Vaughn
> :>
> :> Can modern nuke subs lurk without running a steam turbine?
> :>
> :>
> :There may be a way of getting a radioisotope thermoelectric
> :generator to work with a nuclear reactor on low power. Since
> :these generators do not contain moving parts they are quiet.
> :<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator>
> :
>
> And they produce relatively tiny amounts of power.
>
>
True but since the sub is not moving you only need to power the
lights and the air conditioning.
I would prefer to use a Stirling engine to power a generator but
since they vibrate I suspect that they are noisy.
Andrew Swallow
BlackBeard
> > :>news:hef169$3q1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > :>> "Dennis" <tsalagi18NOS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > :>>news:Xns9CCC82BEA2AADts...@130.133.1.4...
> > :>>> Roger Conroy wrote:
> > :>>>
> > :>>>> Nukes' main "noisemakers" are the reactor cooling pumps which diesels
> > :>>>> by definition don't have.
> > :>>> And also the steam turbines, especially their gearboxes.
> > :>> And other important bits such as main feed pumps.
> > :>>
> > :>> Vaughn
> > :>
> > :> Can modern nuke subs lurk without running a steam turbine?
> > :>
> > :>
> > :There may be a way of getting a radioisotope thermoelectric
> > :generator to work with a nuclear reactor on low power. Since
> > :these generators do not contain moving parts they are quiet.
> > :<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator>
> > :
>
> > And they produce relatively tiny amounts of power.
>
> True but since the sub is not moving you only need to power the
> lights and the air conditioning.
>
> I would prefer to use a Stirling engine to power a generator but
> since they vibrate I suspect that they are noisy.
>
> Andrew Swallow
Is it your assertion that the Sub would also turn off all its
sensors, targeting systems, and atmospheric control equipment; sitting
blindly and depending on luck to know what's going on around them? How
long to reboot all systems?
Nuclear Subs are incapable of 'sitting on the bottom' with the
reactor running, so are you shutting it down completely? How long to
restart if you've sat long enough for the temperature to drop
significantly?
If you are not on the bottom and hovering, how do you quiet the
valves that are opening and closing, the shifting of water and other
evolutions that are required to maintain your depth? With no engine
turning do you just drift, how do you maintain your position? You'll
need the hydraulic system with its pumps and accumulators, even worse
you might need to bleed air into the tanks to maintain depth, hovering
is a noisy event.
Given all that, the common line from the USN is that Seawolf and VA.
class boats are quieter, at low speed than the ambient ocean noise.
That puts them on par with most non-nuke boats.
BB
dott.Piergiorgio
> Which isn't really a problem, since there aren't any F-35Cs out there
> and won't be for years (if ever).
>
> Hint: Super Hornets have roughly equivalent combat radius to an F-35C
> on internal fuel. The difference is that the Super Bug can hang
> almost a thousand extra gallons of gas on external pylons. If you do
> that on an F-35 you might as well have bought several of the cheaper
> Super Bugs in the first place.
Aside drag & stealth issues, you conceptually are right, but, as I
understand the practice, the first (outbound) leg of an airstrike is
supposed to be uneventful, tactical-wise, and using external tanks until
nearing the enemy sensor range/ air defence edge is still a good SOP,
esp. if there are available air refueling.
dott.Piergiorgio
> If you are not on the bottom and hovering, how do you quiet the
> valves that are opening and closing, the shifting of water and other
> evolutions that are required to maintain your depth? With no engine
> turning do you just drift, how do you maintain your position? You'll
> need the hydraulic system with its pumps and accumulators, even worse
> you might need to bleed air into the tanks to maintain depth, hovering
> is a noisy event.
> Given all that, the common line from the USN is that Seawolf and VA.
> class boats are quieter, at low speed than the ambient ocean noise.
> That puts them on par with most non-nuke boats.
on paper, there's a rather quiet,AFAIK w/o moving parts , nuclear energy
source, the radioisotope generator, used in many outer solar system
probes (Pioneer 11 & 12, Voyager 2 & 1 [1] and the recent New Horizons)
but the trouble here is that a thing is powering a probe's electronics,
another being the motive power of an undersea boat, howevwer small....
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:7O6dnUWQQ5Oaj47W...@bt.com...
>>
>> And they produce relatively tiny amounts of power.
>>
>>
> True but since the sub is not moving you only need to power the
> lights and the air conditioning.
>
You are not going to do that with a thermo electric generator, they
produce a small fraction of the power needed.
Keith
hcobb
> Yes, there is. Perhaps you should go look up the actual ranges of the
> two aircraft? You're comparing apples and aardvarks. Your number for
> the Super bug is with 4x1000 lb bombs plus lots of other external
> stuff on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission. Your number for JSF is maximum radius
> at optimum altitude with half the weapon load (2x1000 lb bombs, since
> that's all you can carry internally).
Now you are confusing the F-35B with the F-35C.
-HJC
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> :Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>
> And it is the 'stealth issues' that are the point. If you hang
> external payloads (negating stealth), you may as well have bought more
> cheaper airplanes.
Uhm.... airstrikes aren't supposed to be stand-off from the POV of a
CVBG ? I mean, even a mere pair of 250lt. ET should give more endurance
(my idea being to drop the ET prior of appearing into the enemy radars)
If the a/c is stealth and semi-stealth, having the RCS larger initially
then reduced during the approach shouldn't an issue, if the ESM are
handled correctly (and I take for granted that USN and all other major
navies _known well_ how to use the ESM info....)
(I can also point out that the carrier cat launch is one of the major
gas-guzzling phases of an air sortie ?)
dott.Piergiorgio
> :I mean, even a mere pair of 250lt. ET should give more endurance
> :(my idea being to drop the ET prior of appearing into the enemy radars)
> :
>
> So you're going to use your $130 million airplane to drop one tiny
> bomb?
I don't known so well about 18 and 35's hardpoint (aside that I can't
exclude another umptheenth developing mods/A&A on the 35) but I suspect
that there's much more hardpoint & load capability than a single "tiny
bomb" load (my idea is centered around a pair or so of 250/500kg. ETs)
And anyway, with the corrent precision bombing, a "tiny" well-aimed bomb
can do good work (I must point that with china, "collateral damages" are
actually a favor to chinese, not only on the propaganda side (aside the
wisdom of Sun Tzu, warring seems to be the favorite "population control"
of China)
> :
> :If the a/c is stealth and semi-stealth, having the RCS larger initially
> :then reduced during the approach shouldn't an issue, if the ESM are
> :handled correctly (and I take for granted that USN and all other major
> :navies _known well_ how to use the ESM info....)
> :
>
> The Super Hornet is a 'semi-stealth' design.
for "semi-stealth above I indeed refer to the 18 E/F ;)
I agree on the post-launch refill, but I'm of the opinion that reducing
the time of sortie launch (and the sortie cycle time) sooner of later
will became a matter of survival of a/c carrier, as ship type....
(notice carefully of the last three word above prior of becaming
incensed !!!!)
best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
[snip]
hmmmm... how to streamline the points here ?
without hypothesising "hyper-sekrit tactical plans", the carrier warfare
(and land/carrier warfare) is basically "find them prior they find you"
and "strike them prior of their strike", when being in the other
combatant's top of target list (mainly submarines and insidious craft),
so being stand-off and having a good punch seems to me the basic tenets
of carrier warfare.
The punch of carriers has really high range and tactical flexibility,
but has a rather slow "reload time", so to say, and is vulnerable to
attrition.
Now, as I grok radars, there's not only the RCS, but also the range in
the detection side of RADAR, and assuming a radar capable of finding
stealth bandits in the last tenth of bandit tactical radius, and
semi-stealth bandits around 3/10 and 1/2 their (same) tactical radius,
and non-stealth bandits at 8/10 the same radius, a stealth or
semi-stealth using RCS-degrading loads in the first 20% or so of the
tactical radius don't change the picture in the target radars, at least
on my understanding of basics of radio emissions.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the approach course (and more so, the return
course from) to the target isn't straight head-on, because even a
wounded and confused ensign understand the basic geometry of
reciprocals, and from there I guess that at least some of the
off-enemy-radar part of the attack route is devoted to putting some
bearing difference between the attack route and the launch position.
(this is why I speak of *tactical* radius)
Lastly is my understanding that refueling, aside the tipping-off nearby
the CV, rarely is in the attack leg, but important in the returning leg,
mainly to reduce the attrition vulnerability I quoted earlier.
So, as you see, I use only "historical" data and a large dose of wisdom
together with good ol' common sense; surely there are some technical
errors,even serious but I'm reasonably confident that is sound from a
conceptual perspective.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.