Surface warfare

oh, your name as “aggressive member” is really right then…
Political flag waving? It is a fact that your country does have 1.2 billion people (of which too many male ones, but that aside), and too few land to maintain this.

the figure is actually closer to 1.3bn, thats a fact, but what isnt is your CLAIM that there isnt enough land to maintain everyone. if you take you head out of a Tom Clancy ‘novel’ once in a while, you might find that farmers in china are not that keen on growing food crops like weat and rice and instead are moving into fruit and flowers, because the prices are too low. and the reason that prices are too low is because, guess what, there is an oversupply of food in china. :rolleyes:

Brand everyone? WHat do you mean? THe British, are Jonesy, which is according to you guys a buddy of mine in this discussion.
So, now I have to stick to the topic right? Haha, this entire topic isn’t “sticked” to the topic or topic title… Only if you really read it well, and I’m sure some people didn’t read it well enough to understand that, otherwise you would have gotten the point of Jonesy…

go back and read what i wrote before you imbaress yourself futher by suggesting that others cant read properly. 😎

oh, your name as “aggressive member” is really right then…
Political flag waving? It is a fact that your country does have 1.2 billion people (of which too many male ones, but that aside), and too few land to maintain this.
Brand everyone? WHat do you mean? THe British, are Jonesy, which is according to you guys a buddy of mine in this discussion.
So, now I have to stick to the topic right? Haha, this entire topic isn’t “sticked” to the topic or topic title… Only if you really read it well, and I’m sure some people didn’t read it well enough to understand that, otherwise you would have gotten the point of Jonesy…

I agree with GDL Jonesy, I admire your courage to keep going on your point. I suppose they’ll see the power of the SSNs when they come to the West in their imperial search for space.
Obviously they can’t imagine too much, like for example that they don’t know your “zones” nor how many SSNs are out there… Well you made your point to me and to GDL, so you should consider it as a succes. (I were a defender of the Chinese matter at first as you can see in my first posts, but you convinced me indeed!!!!) ALthough the British still stay a bunch of US buttkissers and deserve to be kicked out of EU. 😡

ah, cant really think of a way to try and argue your case convincingly, so you decide to ‘brand’ anyone and everyone who doesnt agree with you as mentally challenged. now why didnt i think of that?:rolleyes:

also, cut the political flag waving as its really getting a little old and boring now. “evil red commies set to try and conqure the world! momy help!…” 😎

want to dicuss it, go start a thread in general discussion, otherwise stick to the topic.

I agree with GDL Jonesy, I admire your courage to keep going on your point. I suppose they’ll see the power of the SSNs when they come to the West in their imperial search for space.
Obviously they can’t imagine too much, like for example that they don’t know your “zones” nor how many SSNs are out there… Well you made your point to me and to GDL, so you should consider it as a succes. (I were a defender of the Chinese matter at first as you can see in my first posts, but you convinced me indeed!!!!) ALthough the British still stay a bunch of US buttkissers and deserve to be kicked out of EU. 😡

Jonesy, I have found trying to debate anything on or around Chinese capabilities today often attracts a lot of flak, and not always for purely technical reasons.

It is a very sensitive subject to certain members here. I avoid it where I can, which is why I didn’t continue along with you on this one. Good luck. But, personally, I have better things to do with my time.

Nearly. I learned my lesson, on the Gorshkov thread, that if your point hasnt gotten through after you’ve tried to describe it six different ways then it is probably being ignored.

Crobato will not have it that the political dimension in this can be ignored and is unwilling to debate the issue on purely strategic and tactical matters.

PLAwolf is still heavily tied to the mythical invincibility of the SSK in the littoral and will not accept that there are quite a few limitations to be expoited there.

I’ll answer both of the last posts these two gentlemen made when I’ve got the time to do the job properly – hopefully that will be tonight UK time.

My god, has this debate ceased??

My point—DEFEAT the southern blockade zone by concentrating your assets on it. Unfortunately for you, the southern blockade zone you drew out happens to be quite narrow. Its got too many rocks and reefs for a nuclear sub to maneuver properly, too much neutral shipping including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia. Classic shallow and littoral water scenario.

Enter the SSN-774 Virginia-class, I guess. The USN has a big focus on the littoral scenario nowadays- not a coincidence, I’m sure.

Crobato

OK I’m obviously not getting this through. A blockade is only ever set to enforce a maritime trade embargo or a naval exclusion zone right – I cant think of another reason to initiate a blockade. In this instance we, obviously, are using the trade embargo enforcement as the reason for our blockade. This being the case no neutral merchants should be steaming to Chinese ports for any reason whatsoever or, if they are, then they are blockade running and fair game whoever they are. Simply put Crobato if there are no friendly merchants in the blockade area, or any that are present are escorted by friendly warships, then its very difficult to see how one could get hit accidentally.

Very difficult for how to get one hit accidentally?

That’s rubbish.

You have not shown how this can be prevented.

Merchantmen from all nations do not drill for blockades or to be convoyed, yes even from Taiwan.

‘Dream world’?. Do you know how busy UK waters are with trawlers and fishing vessels?. Yes every now and again there is a tragic accident here with a trawler getting dragged down, but, there is a procedure to deal with a trawl net snag. Simply engines get stopped, quickly, and the ships diver is sent out to cut the nets. Result?. A slight delay for the sub and some unhappy fishermen with ruined nets. Whats your point?. Is a Japanese fisherman likely to, immediately, get on the HF to PLAN fleet headquarters and report he’s caught a really big fish and give its position???.

And you have any idea that fish represents a major Japanese food supply?

A patrolling sub on war footing would be a major interference with Japanese fishing waters on a public not keen of having foreign powers in their waters.

My agenda is proving that a limited number of SSNs can blockade the coast of a major power on the other side of the world. If you like substitute an equivalent number of Russian subs for RN ones I just chose the RN ones because the thread questioned the relative lack of merit the RN applies to SSM’s and I wanted to highlight the extreme deployment capabilities an SSN provides.

That you have not proven convincingly.

Yes, they show the standard navigational routes to chinese ports. Would Chinese merchant traffic scatter in all directions or would they stick to the routes they know through a blockade line?. I’d imagine they’d stay with the routes they knew rather than have to worry about smacking into a rock or a another merchie going the other way as well as worrying about the subs.

I doubt that. In a blockade, people will use their wits. Your assumption is always based on predictable and ordered behavior of merchantmen which is not very realistic.

So in your mind the whole thing could come unglued if some hapless Indonesian passenger ferry decides to take a detour through the middle of a live fire zone…because that sort of thing happens all the time??. UN engagement rules I admit I’m a bit vague on (and I think the UN are a bit as well), but, international maritime law certainly allows for the creation of exclusion zones.

The whole thing can get unglued if you sink a Philippine, Korean, Japanese or Russian freighters.

What do you mean didnt work?. The Germans work saw strict rationing in the UK that lasted well into the 1950’s!. The USN’s work against Japan made a significant impact on their proseution of the second world war. The blockade of Cuba successfully defused possibly the most tense geopolitical crisis the world has ever seen. Lastly the total exclusion zone we threw around the Falklands seemed fairly effective as did the stationing of SSN’s off Puerto Belgrano.

Those are island nations. Not continental powers. A blockade against the US will not work, for example.

We’re talking about the southern coast at least. During a war time, China would not be using its northern ports at all. By concentrating on the south, it can also concentrate its ASW assets there. Pretty useless exercise anyway since Chinese ships are not going to be traveling far north. They will pretty much concentrated on the south, and it is likely they might even offload in Vietnamese, Malaysian or Thai ports.

How do you define a northern port?. Shanghai is one of China’s biggest ports isnt it? Also Ningbo has recetly been set up as an oil port very impressively:

So is Hongkong, Xiamen and Shenzhen.

Apart from round the south of Taiwan and up through the Ryukyu’s into the ECS.

No need for that. Just break the southern blockade. It is narrow enough, and all you need to do is concentrate your assets against that.

Well you had better inform the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee about that. They would appear to hold a slightly differing view. These are some of the pertinent excepts of their report on China’s oil import Strategy. The full text of this report being found at

Yes, they should be informed. We have seen a lot of foreign studies and estimates about the Chinese economy that often go DEAD WRONG.

Let Dundee join the LONG LIST of this.

It’s true that China’s economy is increasing demand for oil, but that is due to the rise of its automotive culture. (The US uses 1 billion tons every year). In a war time, luxuries can be sacrificed. The industries themselves can still be run by natural gas, coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity.

Also China still has a lot of reserves on its own.

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=565&fSetId=304&fArticleId=2138501

China’s proven oil reserves at 6.5 billion tons
July 5, 2004

Beijing – Energy-hungry China had proven oil reserves – crude oil classified as practical to extract – totalling 6.5 billion tons at the end of 2003, the Ministry of Land and Resources said Monday.

This amounts to 43 percent of China’s estimated total recoverable reserves.

The ministry published the figures on its website citing statistics provided by China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and said the level of reserves could provide for steady output growth over the next 20 years.

The estimate is double the level estimated by British oil giant BP, which put China’s end-2003 proven reserves at 3.2 billion tons – sustainable for exploitation for 19.1 years.

No one at Sinopec was available for comment on the differences with BP’s estimate but such figures are known to vary widely due to differing methods and assumptions.

YUP 19 years.

How you get a tanker through the Taiwan Strait from Malacca without going through the southern blockade zone? Also how do you get through the Ryukyus without crossing into the eastern patrol zone?. What does Taiwans status have to do with this?

My point—DEFEAT the southern blockade zone by concentrating your assets on it. Unfortunately for you, the southern blockade zone you drew out happens to be quite narrow. Its got too many rocks and reefs for a nuclear sub to maneuver properly, too much neutral shipping including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia. Classic shallow and littoral water scenario.

You have not given me a good reason why neutral shipping can easily be forced into the strict and confusing routes you mentioned, why you can’t accidentally shoot neutral shipping, provided me any reason how you can distinguish tankers from freighters, and this from country to country.

As for the Mings,

Can you go ahead and explain to me if the Herkules is the same as the Chinese Pike Jaw, because really, one of the differences between Type 035 and 033 (Romeo) is the sonar.

And even then, Type 033 has improved sonar over the Russian Romeo.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/033.asp

The Type 033 is not a simple clone of the Romeo class. Considerable improvements were made even at its design stage. The Type 033 has eight torpedo tubes, in contrast to the six tubes on Romeo class. Also the Type 033 has a slightly increased displacement while remains same underwater speed. By increasing the fuel capacity, the maximum range and self-retaining capability of the Type 033 is twice as much as those of Romeo class. Other improvements include an improved sonar, and a water-cooling system for the battery array.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ming-specs.htm

Sonars Pike Jaw hull mounted active/passive search and attack
DUUX 5 passive ranging and intercept

Oh yeah, DUUX is an intercept sonar too.

If a Type 035 can hide out from the JSMDF and the USN right off the Japanese coast (Nov. 2003), that does not sound like it’s fitted with fifties equipment.

May I point you on the fact that either I have missed some news while at sea, or that you are talking rubbish and that PLAN only has about 8 real confirmed Helixes.
There is also the fact that all the ships you just mention only carry one Helix. Maybe you meant that and my English isn’t good enough…

Although there you still have RUMORS about that 093. And the additional Kilo argument was what I meant with: “not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise”. Otherwise I should have stated that India is buying some of the Amur class together with Scorpene class for a total of 24 new SSKs.
They are also working on a Orion deal to add these to the May planes they already have.

Those deals are not confirmed and at the moment just plain talk. A lot of Indian arms deals are feeling their way through without actually signing. You can bet that China has a lot of arms deals under negotiations but they don’t air that in public. The Chinese already BOUGHT (pass tense—signed in contract) 8 new Kilos that are being CONTRUCTED. Okay, that’s a big difference about TALKING OF BUYING.

As for the rumors about 093, apparently the USN believes at least one has been launched and another being constructed. If ONI has any basis for that, I guess it may be more than a rumor.

Severodvinsk and Jonesy you two have not shown how such a small number of British SSNs can do so much. Your arguments are unrealistic and your facts wrong. You two are upset because you have lost the debate. 😀

Maybe British and Chinese??

3 ports… I did say it was only as a matter of speaking, China does not have 1,000 tankers either. It’s just a numerical example, like this entire “exercise”.

However some people feel quite injured here and want to shift the debate on India 😀
It is a bad thing to think India is a midget, since it’s growing a LOT lately. Also 60% of NASA engineers are Indians, they are excellent in Electronics, also their shipbuilding market is growing a lot too. Probably overtaking China’s in several years.
India would in fact be a harder target. It has much more space to defend, but also much more space to use. With 5 SSNs, it would be impossible to cover the West, South and East of India. This is harder than the Chinese example because the SSNs can’t go straight to a new zone… There are much less chokepoints and merchants going to India have a lot more space to choose a track to get to their port. Their ASW is better than the Chinese one. They do have the IL-38 May ASW aircraft, several more Helix helicopters together with 10 Kilo class SSKs and a large number of German built Type 209 class SSKs, in total that makes about 18 or 20 submarines, lot less than China, but all of them are relatively new. Also they are ordering more modern subs too now (not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise). Their carrier also has some Helix helicopters onboard and they are therefor capable of doing some long range defence too. They can shield the Red Sea entrance to the Indian ocean and if necessary also the Taiwan strait (from the base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands) to keep an eye on any possible sub entering the Indian ocean.

no such thing as being ‘injured’. no, im just a little confused about why some people are trying so hard to somehow change reality so that the chinese martine picture would resemble india when they can just use india as the example since this is just an acedemic exercise.

i strongely disagree with the assertion that indian trade is somehow unimportant to the world economy, but then that side of the debate has been sidesteped right from the start.

i have no idea where you get the idea that there are any chockpoints for chinese shipping. point them out if you can. and your spacing argument is completely irrelevent. if anything, china has just as much if not more space to use, but thats beside the point. modern SSNs can easily locate any surface ship within the entire indian ocean and ID any warships.

problem only arises with commerical shipping, since most of the world’s merchant ships are built by the same countries (japan, SK, china, US etc), so its hard telling who’s using the ships without going close to eyeball them. in the indian ocean, you can re-route neutrals far more easily to have a bubble about 1000km wide around the indian coast in which the only commerical ships are indian. and SSNc can then use their endurance advantage to go after them.

unless india adopts a convoy system, RN SSNs can easily bypass any surface search groups. indian ASW might be stronger then that of china’s, but is it stronge enough to protect its carriers against an SSN wolfpack attack? i dont think so. without the carriers, IN surface ships will be in big trouble if they wonder past shore based ASW airborn asset coverage, so there so the convoy strategy.

as for indian SSKs. well china has more SSKs, and more modern SSKs. you’r better off trying to factor in the alkulas.

so the question then becomes, can the PLAN position its assets effectively enough to have a very high probability of one of its ASW assets being in the right place at the right time to catch an SSN firing a fish, and then whether it (and any backup it can call upon) can engage and sink the SSN using passive and/or active detection means?

I agree with that absolutely. Given the limits of the current PLAN ASW force choppers, escorts, SSK’s and MPA’s I cant see how you can concentrate them in suffcient force to perform a successful contact prosecution and still have them spread out over sufficient area, covering both patrol zones, to pick up a random short-duration launch transient. You can say that you would rely on luck but the odds against you are astronomical!

so, let me get this right. the RN, who is trying to enforce a blockade, can just roam around and strike anywhere they like (within the blockade zones). but the PLAN, who is tasked with breaking shipping out of the blockade zone, and who can control the exact movements of its shipping, have to patrol the whole zone. doesnt that seem a little…well, backwards to you? :confused:

there wouldnt be an RN if blockade and anti-blockade warfare was like that. 😮

did you read the bit where i explained how the PLAN can used its control over shipping movements to its advantage? if the RN dont even try to stop every ship it sees heading for china, then there is no blockade by definition, its just a ship sinking excerise. if that is the case, why bother with the exclusion zones at all?

yes, i remeber, setting up the exclusion zones is so that the RN’s SSNs dont have target ID problems. but as the modified map i will post shows, chinese shipping dont have to go past any specific points after they leave the chokehold of the Malacca Straits, they can just follow the japanese and SK shipping lanes until they feel like making a dash for shore or where they have been told there are SSKs waiting nearby. after they get to the safety of the chinese EEZ, they can just follow the coast to whichever port they like.

i have still to see anyone come up with any solutions to that strategy. and if there are no solutions, then isnt the blockade broken?

just while we are on unresolved matters, i have not seen any meantion of what there is to stop chinese shipping just using the gaps in the exclusions zones to get to shore and then follow the coast to their destinations. again, if this cant be adequetly addressed, then the blockade is broken.

Fair one. My ex-wife always did tell me I was arrogant 😎 . Sincerest apologies sir!

no prob mate, also sorry if i sounded rud before or after this post. nothing meant by it. (well not to you at least) 😉

…but what we are trying to do, without the politics, does have practical value in terms of relative ASuW capabilities of varying platforms and weapon systems. Shall we deviate the course of the thread to examine, closely, the force mix that would be required to perform Crobato’s surface vessel blockade of the same Chinese ports?. Then we can add up the cost of the SSNs required to do the job and compare them to the costs of the surface ships, aircraft and screening submarines required for the surface blockade!?

i see your point, however just as SSNs have certain advantages over surface vessels, they also carry with them certain disadvantages, and target ID is one of them. because of this, how can you come up with a conclusion of any meaningful value if you only acknowledge the strengths of SSNs but ignores the problems associated with their use?

how would an assessment of the battle of the atlanctic (before US formal involvement) have ended if the presence of US ships had been ignored? german u-boats specifically stayed away from the US coast where british shipping congregated because of the fear of accidentally sinking US ships (or rather sinking too many of them). hope you are getting what im trying to say.

The problem with that statement though is that China dont have all that many modern SSK’s and those you have will need to be widely spread out to reinforce the poorer-equipped Mings and Romeo’s. Yes when an SSK is just making steerageway it is quiet, but, it is also stationary and able to control only a very small bubble of sea space – especially when we talk of the fairly basic sonars the vast majority of PLAN SSK’s appear to mount. The other thing is, as we’ve discussed, SSK’s are only silent when on-station. The SSNs could have been in place weeks prior to any PLAN SSK surge and watch them take up station, they would have the strategic initiative as the blockade would be to a UK timetable.

well again, read the bit in one of my previous post about how shipping can be routed past SSK ‘posts’ to trap SSNs. remeber, the PLAN only need to sink 2~3 SSNs to break the blockade.

also, it is a little unrealistic to think that RN would suddenly decide to blockade china without any signs of it. there will be a gradual deteriation of relations, and the PLAN will be on high alert long before UK polititions give the go ahead to send SSNs in. remeber the problems the UK would face if one of their SSNs was seen in chinese waters when no formal hostility has broken out. dont really help to get world on your side as the UK would look like the aggressor. the UK would almosy certainly try to repair relations to stop it getting to the brink of war, and sending SSNs to the other guy’s door step stinks of gunboat deplomacy if they are found (lets face it, if the UK wanted to use gunboat deplomacy, they would not be sending in subs but the carriers). but again, getting into politics arent we? :diablo:

even if we were to move past that obvious, crater of a whole in that argument. SSKs, especially the modern ones are extremely hard to find even when they are moving quite fast (well, as long as they are not going flat out), meaning an RN boat will have to be in just the right place at the right time to have a chance of hearing an SSK logging on or off. add in the fact that RN SSN are extremely few in number as it is and they will mostly be on the lookout for or attacking merchants (which is their primary task), and also the size of the exclusions zones… well lets say that the chances of an RN SSN being close enough to hear an SSK going on station or going off station without being detected itself is ‘astronomical’, as you put it. 😉

also, if the UK plans to have any chance of getting neutrols out of the exclusions zones, then they will need to tell everybody where the zones are, and when they come into effect. and they have to tell everyone quite some time in advanced as well.

Question for Jonesy: I do know the UK SSNs can pass Suez without any trouble, but what I don’t know is whether they can do that while submerged. That is what I meant with being seen when you pass suez. Every sub I’ve seen pictured passing the Suez, was surfaced. (of course, otherwise it’s a lost effort of taking a picture of the Canal with a submerged sub).
So, can they stay submerged and not be detected or do they have to stay surfaced and hence quite visible to people standing on the entrance and sides of the Canal?

On maritime safety grounds subs are obliged to transit Suez on the surface. I am 98% certain that one is a legal requirement, but, I will try and get that confirmed for you. The basic fact is that the canal is only about 60ft deep so only very small subs would be able to submerge in canal anyway!.

688 transitting Suez with CVN

Like for my ship, we only knew our destination about 5 days before arrival. We knew from the Gulf that we had to go to Japan, but we didn’t know where. We made about 5 or 6 passage plans, yet we only had to go to 2 ports, that, together with the winds and currents made us take a very steep Northern course, only bending to the East 20 miles South of Taiwan. On the return on the other hand, we came from much more North and did follow your green course more or less.

Didnt know you merchies worked on that system!. I always got told you set out for a distinct destination port where the cargo would be expected at a certain date for onward distribution!.

For a Non-merchant, you’re good in estimated the routes!!!

I think thats even a compliment isnt it Roel?! A rare thing indeed for a merchant type to fire at navy type! Its appreciated shipmate!. 😀

If you want it, I can send you the chart we used (although it’s one for November only) with the winds and currents to which we very much choose our tracks.

Yeah its been ages since I got chance to brush up on the navigational stuff!. Would be very interested in seeing that. You have it electronically stored or do you need a return-addressed envelope?

Crobato

That has nothing to do whether the sub is able to discriminate from Taiwan, China, Korea, Russian or Japanese shipping. You have not explained that to me not one single ounce.

Your assumption of cooperation comes with another assumption—that the vessels of the friendly nation will not get hit. Probablility errors and margins will not guarantee that, and you cannot guarantee that a sub is able to distinguish neutral and hostile shipping. This is a job for SURFACE ships, not subs.

OK I’m obviously not getting this through. A blockade is only ever set to enforce a maritime trade embargo or a naval exclusion zone right – I cant think of another reason to initiate a blockade. In this instance we, obviously, are using the trade embargo enforcement as the reason for our blockade. This being the case no neutral merchants should be steaming to Chinese ports for any reason whatsoever or, if they are, then they are blockade running and fair game whoever they are. Simply put Crobato if there are no friendly merchants in the blockade area, or any that are present are escorted by friendly warships, then its very difficult to see how one could get hit accidentally.

Subs patrolling their fishing waters and they don’t care? What kind of dream world are you living in? You’re also talking about an area that’s full of trawlers with big fishing nets.

‘Dream world’?. Do you know how busy UK waters are with trawlers and fishing vessels?. Yes every now and again there is a tragic accident here with a trawler getting dragged down, but, there is a procedure to deal with a trawl net snag. Simply engines get stopped, quickly, and the ships diver is sent out to cut the nets. Result?. A slight delay for the sub and some unhappy fishermen with ruined nets. Whats your point?. Is a Japanese fisherman likely to, immediately, get on the HF to PLAN fleet headquarters and report he’s caught a really big fish and give its position???.

As for talking about agendas, look who is talking here.

My agenda is proving that a limited number of SSNs can blockade the coast of a major power on the other side of the world. If you like substitute an equivalent number of Russian subs for RN ones I just chose the RN ones because the thread questioned the relative lack of merit the RN applies to SSM’s and I wanted to highlight the extreme deployment capabilities an SSN provides.

The red lines are WHAT YOU DREW as routes during a PEACETIME situation

Yes, they show the standard navigational routes to chinese ports. Would Chinese merchant traffic scatter in all directions or would they stick to the routes they know through a blockade line?. I’d imagine they’d stay with the routes they knew rather than have to worry about smacking into a rock or a another merchie going the other way as well as worrying about the subs.

I have already answered the question why a neutral merchantman can be outside those routes BECAUSE THESE THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. There is always someone who won’t or ain’t going to follow or will be mistaken. You just deviced a plan with ZERO contingency where you mix both hostile and neutral zones in a complex and confusing web WITHOUT considering maritime laws and UN engagement rules.

So in your mind the whole thing could come unglued if some hapless Indonesian passenger ferry decides to take a detour through the middle of a live fire zone…because that sort of thing happens all the time??. UN engagement rules I admit I’m a bit vague on (and I think the UN are a bit as well), but, international maritime law certainly allows for the creation of exclusion zones.

Jane’s is proven to be wet when it comes to Chinese matters. As for sinodefence.com, they only described the Type 035, not the 035G. If you read the text carefully, the 035G is something else—we know it has a new passive sonar, command systems, fire control systems, new antisound coatings…

How many 035G’s are there compared to standard Ming’s?. Plus I am still waiting on a source for the upgrades to the Herkules sets you mentioned.

Oh man, THAT is a narrow blockade area. Never worked with the Germans or with the Japanese during WWII.

What do you mean didnt work?. The Germans work saw strict rationing in the UK that lasted well into the 1950’s!. The USN’s work against Japan made a significant impact on their proseution of the second world war. The blockade of Cuba successfully defused possibly the most tense geopolitical crisis the world has ever seen. Lastly the total exclusion zone we threw around the Falklands seemed fairly effective as did the stationing of SSN’s off Puerto Belgrano.

We’re talking about the southern coast at least. During a war time, China would not be using its northern ports at all. By concentrating on the south, it can also concentrate its ASW assets there. Pretty useless exercise anyway since Chinese ships are not going to be traveling far north. They will pretty much concentrated on the south, and it is likely they might even offload in Vietnamese, Malaysian or Thai ports.

How do you define a northern port?. Shanghai is one of China’s biggest ports isnt it? Also Ningbo has recetly been set up as an oil port very impressively:

http://english.people.com.cn/200112/24/eng20011224_87352.shtml

There is no way the ships can reach the northern ports without passing through Taiwan, so that is already a given those ports won’t be used at all.

Apart from round the south of Taiwan and up through the Ryukyu’s into the ECS.

It’s also completely silly to think that China depends on the tanker trade when it does not. It has its own inland oil reserves and has pipelines to Siberia and Central Asia. It also gets oil from off shore reserves.

Well you had better inform the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee about that. They would appear to hold a slightly differing view. These are some of the pertinent excepts of their report on China’s oil import Strategy. The full text of this report being found at http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/Vol14/Vol14_6.pdf.

China is the world’s second largest consumer of primary commercial energy, accounting for 12% of the global total. Its demand in 2003 was equivalent to that of Japan, South Korea, India and Indonesia combined, or some 80% of the EU-15 states, and it increased by 14% in that year. In 2002 China overtook Japan to become the second largest consumer of oil. China’s demand for oil rose by a further 11% in 2003, when it accounted for 7.5% of global oil consumption. The same year oil imports rose nearly 30% to 128 million barrels, some 5.5% of globally traded oil. Net oil imports were 108 million barrels, or 40% of China’s total oil consumption.

and

Recent trends in China’s oil supply and demand During the 1980s China was a net exporter of about 20 million tonnes of oil per year. In the mid-1990s this situation changed. Demand for oil exceeded the domestic capacity to produce and China became a net importer of oil. The gap between domestic demand and supply grew to almost 110 million tonnes in 2003 (Fig.1). Despite expensive exploration campaigns onshore and offshore, the domestic output of oil has been increasing at only 1-2% per year. As old, large fields go into decline, new discoveries are barely compensating. It is most unlikely that a sustained growth of supply will be achieved and total national oil production may reach a peak during the coming ten years.

and

The key elements of China’s oil strategy

In 2003 China’s oil supply-demand gap was about 110 million tonnes, this is set to grow to 250 to 350 million tonnes by 2015. China’s current oil strategy builds on the nation’s longstanding preference for self-reliance but has been adapted over the last few years to reflect the challenges the country faces in securing its oil supplies from both domestic and international markets. The approach is ‘strategic’ in nature in that the importance of government is emphasised and markets are relegated to a supporting role. Government
directs the implementation of oil policy directly through control of investment and domestic oil prices as well as indirectly through state-owned oil companies and state banks.

The key elements of the domestic aspects of China’s oil strategy are as follows:
• Maximising the production of oil from domestic oilfields. This is a major
challenge as the old large oil fields in north and east China which have supported the sector for the last thirty years are entering their decline. Discoveries continue to be made offshore and in the north-west of the country, but they are barely compensating for production. Production growth in the first few months of 2004 was only 1%. With few exceptions, most investment in oil exploration and development is through the three main state oil companies (PetroChina, Sinopec and CNOOC).
• Maximising the throughput of the domestic refining industry. For the last ten
years the government have sought to maximise the import of crude oil and to
constrain the import of products in order to maximise the opportunity for the oil to be refined in China and by Chinese companies. This strategy has been constrained by the need to upgrade the exiting refineries to accept sour crude oil from the Middle East and by the product mix of the Chinese refineries which requires China to import significant quantities of LPG and heavy fuel oil. Foreign investment in China’s refining industry (rather than petrochemicals) has moved very slowly.
• Domestic pipelines, ports and shipping. China’s ability to import and distribute oil is constrained by a shortage of capacity on many fronts. Considerable steps have been taken to expand the domestic pipeline network for crude oil and for oil products, to construct additional port capacity to handle oil imports and to embark on a concerted drive to build a substantial Chinese oil tanker fleet. In the recent past Chinese tankers have carried less than 10% of the nation’s oil imports. By 2005 this is intended to reach 50%.
• Emergency storage. After several years of debate and inaction, the government has at last announced a firm plan to construct emergency oil storage capability which is intended to exceed 20 million tonnes by 2010 and to reach 50-70 million tonnes by 2015. Construction of the tanks has is due to start in 2004.

Now if your assumption is that Taiwan is not at war, then you can bring the tankers up north and pass through the Ryukus. But why would you do that when you can make them pass through the STRAITS directly, and avoid the Ryukus.

How you get a tanker through the Taiwan Strait from Malacca without going through the southern blockade zone? Also how do you get through the Ryukyus without crossing into the eastern patrol zone?. What does Taiwans status have to do with this?

Oopps. Is the DUUX done by Thompson, a French company?

Ooops I think I already said that!. I said Some units, not note all, have had a French passive ranging and intercept sonar grafted on. Not the same thing.. Tell you what Crobato you go and find out what the difference between a passive sonar and a passive ranging and intercept sonar is then get back to me. I know what it is, but, you dont seem to see the difference.

May I point you on the fact that either I have missed some news while at sea, or that you are talking rubbish and that PLAN only has about 8 real confirmed Helixes.
There is also the fact that all the ships you just mention only carry one Helix. Maybe you meant that and my English isn’t good enough…

Although there you still have RUMORS about that 093. And the additional Kilo argument was what I meant with: “not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise”. Otherwise I should have stated that India is buying some of the Amur class together with Scorpene class for a total of 24 new SSKs.
They are also working on a Orion deal to add these to the May planes they already have.

Actually, China has at least 10 Helixes, or Helices? According to Jane’s FIghting Ships, updated May 13, 2004, they have 6 Ka 28PL ASW helicopters acquired in 1997 for evaluation and 4 Ka 28PS for SAR delivered in late 1999.

May I point you on the fact that either I have missed some news while at sea, or that you are talking rubbish and that PLAN only has about 8 real confirmed Helixes.
There is also the fact that all the ships you just mention only carry one Helix. Maybe you meant that and my English isn’t good enough…

Although there you still have RUMORS about that 093. And the additional Kilo argument was what I meant with: “not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise”. Otherwise I should have stated that India is buying some of the Amur class together with Scorpene class for a total of 24 new SSKs.
They are also working on a Orion deal to add these to the May planes they already have.

Maybe British and Chinese??

3 ports… I did say it was only as a matter of speaking, China does not have 1,000 tankers either. It’s just a numerical example, like this entire “exercise”.

However some people feel quite injured here and want to shift the debate on India 😀
It is a bad thing to think India is a midget, since it’s growing a LOT lately. Also 60% of NASA engineers are Indians, they are excellent in Electronics, also their shipbuilding market is growing a lot too. Probably overtaking China’s in several years.
India would in fact be a harder target. It has much more space to defend, but also much more space to use. With 5 SSNs, it would be impossible to cover the West, South and East of India. This is harder than the Chinese example because the SSNs can’t go straight to a new zone… There are much less chokepoints and merchants going to India have a lot more space to choose a track to get to their port. Their ASW is better than the Chinese one. They do have the IL-38 May ASW aircraft, several more Helix helicopters together with 10 Kilo class SSKs and a large number of German built Type 209 class SSKs, in total that makes about 18 or 20 submarines, lot less than China, but all of them are relatively new. Also they are ordering more modern subs too now (not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise). Their carrier also has some Helix helicopters onboard and they are therefor capable of doing some long range defence too. They can shield the Red Sea entrance to the Indian ocean and if necessary also the Taiwan strait (from the base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands) to keep an eye on any possible sub entering the Indian ocean.

IN’s ASW boat is about the same as the PLAN’s. PLAN has an entire reg of Helix—about 20-40 helos est—in addition to two Helix each on the Sovs, two each on the 052C, two each on the 052B (another six), plus Z-9C Dauphins and Z-8 Super Frelons. About 8 to 9 Songs by now (add one more for every 4-6 months), 4 Kilos, with 8 Kilos under construction of which 2 has already been launched. (Of all these Kilos, only 2 are not of the 636 type.) Then you have at least one Yuan, but you might have more under construction. USN appears to believe at least one Type 093 SSN has been launched and another already in construction.

Blueshark,

If Jonesy is so eager to demonstrate the ASuW capabilities of British SSNs, then India is a better target. India is an economic midget and the world won’t mind if Britain attacks India. India’s small civilian fleet can be sunk quickly. India’s navy is weak in ASW and has no AAW capability at all. Over the next 10 years India will be getting 2 small aircraft carriers. Sinking these 2 aircraft carriers will be a good demonstration of the ASuW capabilities of Britsh SSNs.

Such an obvious attempt to wreck the thread is a very poor reflection on your intelligence. Subtlety isnt your thing is it really?.

What you’ve actually done is prove that some of the more reactionary Indian elements on this board are actually big enough to rise above such behaviour. They’ve impressed me immensely by their restraint and I have you to thank for showing me that.

Maybe British and Chinese??

3 ports… I did say it was only as a matter of speaking, China does not have 1,000 tankers either. It’s just a numerical example, like this entire “exercise”.

However some people feel quite injured here and want to shift the debate on India 😀
It is a bad thing to think India is a midget, since it’s growing a LOT lately. Also 60% of NASA engineers are Indians, they are excellent in Electronics, also their shipbuilding market is growing a lot too. Probably overtaking China’s in several years.
India would in fact be a harder target. It has much more space to defend, but also much more space to use. With 5 SSNs, it would be impossible to cover the West, South and East of India. This is harder than the Chinese example because the SSNs can’t go straight to a new zone… There are much less chokepoints and merchants going to India have a lot more space to choose a track to get to their port. Their ASW is better than the Chinese one. They do have the IL-38 May ASW aircraft, several more Helix helicopters together with 10 Kilo class SSKs and a large number of German built Type 209 class SSKs, in total that makes about 18 or 20 submarines, lot less than China, but all of them are relatively new. Also they are ordering more modern subs too now (not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise). Their carrier also has some Helix helicopters onboard and they are therefor capable of doing some long range defence too. They can shield the Red Sea entrance to the Indian ocean and if necessary also the Taiwan strait (from the base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands) to keep an eye on any possible sub entering the Indian ocean.

Question for Jonesy: I do know the UK SSNs can pass Suez without any trouble, but what I don’t know is whether they can do that while submerged. That is what I meant with being seen when you pass suez. Every sub I’ve seen pictured passing the Suez, was surfaced. (of course, otherwise it’s a lost effort of taking a picture of the Canal with a submerged sub).
So, can they stay submerged and not be detected or do they have to stay surfaced and hence quite visible to people standing on the entrance and sides of the Canal?