US Intelligence caught flatfooted by new ChiCom Sub type

[MKSheppard]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -8152r.htm

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 — 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.

[Col. Crackpot]

do we even have the ability to ramp up sub production? Electric Boat is busy building Virginias and refitting Ohios for specialty roles. *shrugs* Hell, if they want to expand the yards, and ramp up export sales, great, i'll be first in line dropping an application at EB-Quonset Point's Quality Assurance department. They pay their people extremely well.

[Crown]

The whole 'ramp up desiel' sub production smells fishy to me (no pun, and I have a blocked nose for reference). The US doesn't make anymore diesel subs AFAIK, and only builds nuclear powered ones, yes?

Oh and here's a question; what's a sub doing with an ICBM on board

This article seems a bit shoddy to me.

[Beowulf]

The whole 'ramp up desiel' sub production smells fishy to me (no pun, and I have a blocked nose for reference). The US doesn't make anymore diesel subs AFAIK, and only builds nuclear powered ones, yes?

Oh and here's a question; what's a sub doing with an ICBM on board

This article seems a bit shoddy to me.

The US no longer uses any diesel subs. So them putting that in the article is slightly strange. As for ICBMs on a sub, they're probably just confused, and think any strategic ballistic missile is an ICBM, when they're really just SLBMs.

[Durandal]

Would a sub even have the capacity to carry an ICBM? Those are pretty big missiles, after all.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Subs are the answer against carriers?

This guy is shady.

[Stormbringer]

Would a sub even have the capacity to carry an ICBM? Those are pretty big missiles, after all.

No, which is why it's probably a screw up in calling a SLBM an ICBM.

[MKSheppard]

Would a sub even have the capacity to carry an ICBM? Those are pretty big missiles, after all.

We call those SSBs. Submarine, Ballistic Missile

[Vympel]

The articles wrong. The Type 094 is an SSBN, the Type 093 is an SSN.

[Stormbringer]

Subs are the answer against carriers?

This guy is shady.

Seeing as how China hasn't really got a hope of feilding a match for the US supercarriers, trying to create a large, moderately capable sub fleet is the next best thing in their mind. With the US retiring a lot of it's ASW oriented ships as apparent US attack subs policy it's not a such a bad idea.

How good are Chinese subs these days? I know their homegrown subs are supposed to be relatively shit but I'm not terribly current.

[MKSheppard]

Subs are the answer against carriers?

The PLA(N) seems to think so. They're offering triple/quadruple pay
for anyone in their navy who joins the submarine service, etc. Remember,
the USSR did think Subs were the answer to CVNs:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ia/949.htm

The Oscar-class nuclear-powered cruise missile attack submarine, which displaces more than 18,000 tons when under water, is one of Russia's largest and most capable submarines. As with earlier cruise-missile submarine, the Oscar was designed primarily to attack American aircraft carrier battle groups.

This guy is shady.

Oh yes, I've learned from another board I posted this on, that Gertz is
steadily declining in terms of reliability; and is apparently now the tool
of whoever in the Pentagon is leaking memos to him at the moment.

[MKSheppard]

How good are Chinese subs these days? I know their homegrown subs are supposed to be relatively shit but I'm not terribly current.

I hope the Seer doesn't mind me quoting him:

On the quality side, they've got really serious problems. Every one of their indigenous submarine designs has turned out to be a disaster. The Songs took almost a decade to straighten out and they're only just hitting mass production now. They're still building Mings for Heaven's sake. They lost a sub last year from a cause that nobody has figured out yet (all the crew were dead; investigations still trying to work out how). They also have problems maintaining high-tech boats. Their 877s and 636s are in port most of the time waiting for spares and maintenance. This may ease when they get the next eight 636s.

[Master of Ossus]

You'll forgive me if I'm not too worried about the US' naval superiority over China, just yet. A diesel submarine, even if it is of a new class, isn't going to last long in an age where nuclear submarines dominate submarine warfare, and in which carriers are the main force over the waves.

[Stormbringer]

You'll forgive me if I'm not too worried about the US' naval superiority over China, just yet. A diesel submarine, even if it is of a new class, isn't going to last long in an age where nuclear submarines dominate submarine warfare, and in which carriers are the main force over the waves.

Depends on the quality of the diesel sub. A number of European nations operate some pretty good diesel/electric boats that can handle themselves well. And as I understand it, some of the Russian diesel boats weren't too bad either. The Chinese boats will get eaten for breakfast simply becaue they're lousy subs, period.

[Master of Ossus]

Depends on the quality of the diesel sub. A number of European nations operate some pretty good diesel/electric boats that can handle themselves well. And as I understand it, some of the Russian diesel boats weren't too bad either. The Chinese boats will get eaten for breakfast simply becaue they're lousy subs, period.

The problem with diesel subs it that they have LOUSY range compared with nuclear ones. Coupled with China's relatively short-range missile capability, that's not going to go too well with a resurgence on the high-seas.

[MKSheppard]

The problem with diesel subs it that they have LOUSY range compared with nuclear ones. Coupled with China's relatively short-range missile capability, that's not going to go too well with a resurgence on the high-seas.

They're lousy for power projection, but great for in close littorials,
like keeping the USN well away from the coast of China, increasing the
time USN airstrikes have to fly to hit their targets, etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Arent we obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan if they rebel?

[Master of Ossus]

Arent we obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan if they rebel?

No. Not remotely. Remember that the US ostensibly holds that Taiwana and China are not separate countries.

[MKSheppard]

No. Not remotely.

We're bound by law to provide boatloads of weapons to Taiwan if
China acts aggressively.

[Master of Ossus]

We're bound by law to provide boatloads of weapons to Taiwan if
China acts aggressively.

But the American carrier group sitting off the coast could just stand down and watch the fireworks.

[MKSheppard]

But the American carrier group sitting off the coast could just stand down and watch the fireworks.

Not very likely:

GOP Platform from 2000:

Our policy is based on the principle that there must be no use of force by China against Taiwan. We deny the right of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan, then the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself.

[MKSheppard]

Anyway, for those of you interested; the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act
is HERE

[Master of Ossus]

Shep, the original question was whether we were obligated to defend Taiwan, and the answer is that we're not. I've never disputed the fact that if China invades Taiwan then the Americans will almost certainly become involved in the fighting, but that doesn't change the fact that the US government has never formally declared its intention to defend Taiwan come hell or high water.

[Stormbringer]

Depends on the quality of the diesel sub. A number of European nations operate some pretty good diesel/electric boats that can handle themselves well. And as I understand it, some of the Russian diesel boats weren't too bad either. The Chinese boats will get eaten for breakfast simply becaue they're lousy subs, period.

The problem with diesel subs it that they have LOUSY range compared with nuclear ones. Coupled with China's relatively short-range missile capability, that's not going to go too well with a resurgence on the high-seas.

Yes they do. But for challenging US CVBGs closer to shore (where they would be in range) they're not a bad option. Seawolfs they aren't but for what they're looking at using them for it's possible to build a perfectly adequate diesel boat.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Would a sub even have the capacity to carry an ICBM? Those are pretty big missiles, after all.

We call those SSBs. Submarine, Ballistic Missile

He's right. What service ICBM would fit in a sub?

Nice framing the response to eliminate the possibility that Damien knew about SLBMs, even though they are distinct from ICBMs to facilitate your little quip.