China Drives AirSea Battle

China Drives AirSea Battle

In the early 1980s, the Army, with Air Force cooperation, came up with a warfighting concept known as AirLand Battle designed to rain punishing ground and air strikes on Soviet shock armies before they could steamroll NATO defenses. Today, the military is formulating a new concept called AirSea Battle designed to counter China’s rapidly growing arsenal of anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as aircraft carrier killing ballistic missiles, sea-skimming missiles, stealthy submarines, bristling air-defense networks, anti-satellite and cyber weaponry.

The 2010 QDR directed the Air Force and Navy to jointly develop the concept to “guide the development of future capabilities needed for effective power projection operations.” Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has been thinking through just such a concept for the last two decades and has a new paper out titled “Why AirSea Battle?” that lays out the case for why its needed.

Krepinevich writes that China’s burgeoning anti-access arsenal is intended to, “raise the US cost of power-projection operations in the Western Pacific to prohibitive levels, thereby deterring any American effort to meet its defense obligations to allies in the region while setting the conditions for a potential latter-day Chinese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of influence.”


China is creating a “no-go zone” off its coasts with its “assassin’s mace” war concept designed to prevent freedom of movement of U.S. naval and air forces. Beijing has been building up its A2/AD network for decades, but things really accelerated since the 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis when the U.S. sailed two carrier strike groups into the strait.

The CSBA paper also examines Iran’s efforts at building a similar no go zone in the Gulf. In the development of AirSea Battle, Iran is definitely the lesser included case.

U.S. military dominance is eroding “at an increasing and alarming rate,” Krepinevich writes, because precision guided munitions pit very costly U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft, against an opponent’s much cheaper and voluminous missile magazines. The ability to project and sustain military forces overseas is threatened by this modern, high-tech equivalent of the U-Boat menace.

The Chinese military buildup aims to threaten key point targets such as Kadena Air Force Base in Japan and Andersen Air Base on Guam. Early in any conflict, the Chinese would launch massive salvos of ballistic missiles at those bases followed by waves of strike aircraft, Krepinevich writes.

Additionally, any fleet attempting to steam into the waters within the second island chain would be destroyed by China’s very long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submarines. China has also developed and tested anti-satellite weapons and cyber weapons that could cripple U.S. targeting networks that are reliant on satellites and data networks.

In the face of such threats, traditional notion of power projection must adapt or accept a loss of access to the Western Pacific. Krepinevich promises a subsequent report will flesh out some of the AirSea Battle war fighting concept.

The strategic rationale for U.S. power projection has historically been based on the ability to support forward deployed forces, reassure allies with presence and maintain the flow of resources on which the economy depends. During the Cold War, one of the U.S. Navy’s major tasks was to ensure an unimpeded troop and equipment flow to Europe so as to reinforce NATO, a maritime “Red Ball Express,” if you will.

Yet, in a conflict against China, it’s difficult to envision a scenario where the U.S. must deploy and maintain large ground forces into China’s maritime domain. Any conflict against China would be limited, simply because anything larger could cripple both countries. If the Chinese strategy is to create a no-go zone off its shores, it seems plausible that the U.S. counter strategy would be the same: prevent Chinese naval and air forces from operating freely in its own air and maritime space.

There would appear to be alternatives to steaming carrier battle groups within range of China’s vast missile magazines or presenting China with opportune fixed targets on land. Hitting China’s land and sea based targets from stand-off range exploiting U.S. advantages in targeting and precision strike is one. Using stealthy attack submarines to close China’s waterways and choking them off economically would be another.

Developing a war fighting concept, and capabilities, to beat back China’s vast A2/AD network seems the most costly and potentially riskiest approach and would play directly to Chinese strengths. Developing better long-range strike capabilities so as to raise China’s costs to maintain its A2/AD network would likely be the asymmetric warrior’s approach.

We eagerly await Krepinevich’s second installment to see what concepts he devises. In the meantime, we’ll keep an eye out for further AirSea Battle developments from the Pentagon.

Join the Conversation

Best defense against increasing Chinese influence is to cut spending and raise taxes across the board. Is a U.S President going to seriously consider going to war with the countries banker? The Chinese know this.

How about a air, sea, land and space battle concept. This would include cyber warfare. Why not cover everything? DOD start thinking outside the box!

Maybe if Obama gives a speech apologizing for anti-Chinese discrimination in the past. He could also apologize for past discrimination against Communists.

I’m not sure what the problem is, but I’m sure an Obama apology would help.

Drake1,
I agree with you that the only way we can get out of this financial hole is to cut spending and raise taxes across the board. I disagree with you about a war with China. I think we would have no problem going to war with China if they committed a hostile act. All that would happen is that they come to us and say please pay up and our reply would be we default but in less pleasant terms.

I smell policy wonk all over this.

First the Air Force needs to justify its next generation bomber…a bomber that the Pentagon already approved.

Next the Navy needs to justify its misaligned LCS program…which has already gained a tentative number 55 units.

The air and sea services were ‘left out of the fight’ in Iraq and Afghanistan and this is a way to get a bigger piece of the pie in upcoming years.

I“M NOT BUYING IT~!

The Chinese economy basically relys on the US. If we were to go to war, their economy would be hurt more then ours. Infact it would be good for our country. We would be forced to cut spending, and to create jobs here at home to supply all the products that will stop coming to us from China. (Which is made using child labor and using contaminated materials). Its a win-win situation.

The big point here and he is right, is that the US is too buisy trying to develope and dependent upon high high cost, high tech equipment. China has purchased everything Russia would sell them (ships, subs, aircraft, tanks, missiles, you name it. ) as long as it still worked they bought it with no regards to being out dated. The US on the other hand thinks it is OK to send a 6billion dollar ship shooting a million dollar missile to take out a aluminum shed or fifty thousand dollar boat. What we should have done with a lot of the old frigates that were decomed simply because thier weapon (missile) systems were out dated but otherwise fully operational would have been to line thier decks with torpedo tubes, 40mm cannons, depth charges, and bigger deck guns, much in the same manner as the WW2 destroyer escorts.

CONTINUED: We need more heavy carrier bombers such as an upgraded Intruder dropping conventional weapons and not just fighter jets with smart bombs and missiles onboard. I would love to see Torpedo Patrol boats come back into service (4 MK48 torpedos and a trio of 40mm bushmasters would make a heck of a mess, especialy with boats traveling in packs). Our military brass and congress need to go to high tech rehab real soon. THE MAIN POINT THEY AND I ARE TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS, THAT ONE MULTI BILLION SHIP SHOOTING MILLION DOLLAR MUNITIONS CANT DEFEND BEING GREATLY OUTNUMBERED BY LOW TECH, LOW DOLLAR ATTACK CRAFT. besides thier navy fleet they also have thousands of high speed small craft loaded to the gills with explosives (man driven torpedos) that will be hell to contend with due to the lack of close in weapons on our ships these days because the brass figures we cant be defeated.

The Chinese are expanding their trade ties in East Asia, South America, and Africa. The intent is to lessen their dependence on American imports.

Expanding, and expanded are very different. We’re working towards a green economy in the US, but we don’t yet have it.

So becuase they are not yet there, it’s OK to keep borrowing Chinese money to ward off a possible attack/invasion from our creditor!? Like the article said, the Chinese don’t have to invade Taiwan or launch an attack. All they have to do is slowly encroach as we crumble under our collective debt. By the time they actually do make a move, we will be so economically burdened that there will be a great deal of political pressure to negotiate on Chinese terms.

A green economy? More hype and wishful thinking than reality. I see governments throwing around alot of money based on the the wishful thinking of environmental activists.

Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​3​/​0​9​/​b​u​s​i​n​e​s​s​/​e​n​e​rgy

Pretty much.

Good Evening Folks,

I can see Greg is still going green and recycling trash.

The Author os the piece Greg refers to is a right wing nut case. Retired Army Lt. Colonel Andrew Krepinevichis latest billing himself is that of a Military Futurist and his current book “7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explains War” would be a joke if gullible well meaning people didn’t swallow this garbage.

If anyone one else out their read the book I would be glad to discuss it.

On this topioc Lt. Col. Krepinevich forgets to say how China will defends out to the first Island Line let alone the second. He say China has ASBM’s but neither China nor any international military authority makes this claim. China has the worlds largest submarine fleet, but forget to say at the dock.

In 2008 the entire Submarine fleet spent seven days at sea. Of the 87 in the fleet 62 are old 1950’s Soviet Romeo’s and 20 Wiskey Class. The Chinese also have 4 Russian Kilos, 2 are out waiting to be sent back to Russia for overhaul and are building at a rate of tow-five a year a diesel submarine the Ming Class.

Surface feet 11 Destroyers the two most capable are old Soviet era Sovvremenny Class and four older yet Gordy Class the other five boats are 2 Chinese built Luda II’s and 3 Luda’s. The Chinese have between 16–24 1000 ton-1,500 ton Lt. Frigates, which they have for the past year been deploying in anti pyracy duties in the Gulf of Aden.

The PLAN air wing has 30 Russian/Soviet Su.-30MK2’s. The PLANMC is based on Hainan Island and is allocated 30K men but has only about 10-15K Marines. The Chinese Amphibious Fleet is about 54–60 vessels of all kinds, mostly US WW II designed LST and LSD’s. They have done Company size practice amphibious in the in the South China Sea.

These are some of the numbers that Lt. Colonel Krepinevich forgets to mention. For my fact checkers, sorry I’ve not been to active this week, I hope it didn’t effect you paychecks, I will try harder, waiting for new material from Colin and Greg, to give you a break some of these numbers can be found in “The Great Wall of China” by Bernard D. Cole of the USN War College of Newport RI. I threw in a couple of wrong numbers in so you can do your “high five” and “I got ya”, but they don’t effect the argument, I’m just trying to help you guys along.

Now does anybody want to tell me how China is going to rule the 2nd. or even the 1st. Island Defense lines?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

What I was referring to was you saying China is expanding their trade, expanding, and already expanded is different. The green economy was a example, we’re investing in one but aren’t yet there. Also if you read my first comment I said war with them would be a hard blow to them, while being good for the US as it will force the politicians to stop spending and borrowing money from them…

When it comes down to that and hope it will not happen , what we need are 50,000 fast unmaned long distance small missile/ torpedo boats for defense and counter offense

China’s biggest advantage and disadvantage is their population. With over a billion people they have to import 80–90% of their food, since they can only rely on 3–4% of their land for farming. A blockade strategy with commerce raiding would starve the country within months. That could be hastened by restricting sea lanes and bombing their fields with incendiary weapons.

I think the second part of any potential war with China would be ensuring regional allies have access to more of our technology. Providing our allies with similar strike ability to our own with modernized navies would help to keep China in check.

Dont let the age of the old ruskie diesel boats fool you, they are our greatest threat to our fleets and shipping lanes, they can run in shallower waters where they can sit dead on the bottom, and they are scary quiet and undetectable with passive sonar if they have a good crew on board. Old school Submariners in the US have been shouting for years to bring the diesel electric boats back because of the above reasons, they may be slower than a nuke and cant stay down as long as a nuke or at sea as long but they can do the same jobs that nukes do and more that they cannot and are a heck of a lot cheaper to build and maintain. Most of the old gear out there can more easily defeat technology than you realize. More technologicly advanced does not make us more powerful, in reality it hurts us in numbers and funding.

little barry’s Mao loving administration would never follow through

China is rapidly building both new Naval surface combatants (054A), and a large sophisticated air force (SU-27, SU-30, J-11A, J-11B, J-10A/J-10B). The rebuilding if the ex-Russian aircraft carrier is picking up pace with large phased array radar systems of the type found on the 054A being installed at this time.

When combined with the large overlapping S300/S400/HQ-9 installations that cover large areas of ocean, the Chinese are well on their way to achieving their goals.

Are we paying enough attention is my question?

Cocidius —

We are to broke to pay attention

Good Morning Folks,

To BOOMER. Good try but no cigar. Most of these old Soviet boats have been sitting at their docks for a decade or more and with the shrinking size of the PLAN doubtful that they even have any crews. The best diesel powered sub the Chinese have are four old Kilos, two of the the M variant and from 16–24 Songs which are the Chinese reversed engineered Kilos. The two non M Kilos are out of service pending a trip to Russia for overhauls.

To Cocidlus. You are kinda confused here. China in fact has two old Soyiet carrier hauls. One is being scrapped for it salvage after serving as a study for reverse engineering like they did with the ex. Australian HMAS Marlboro. The other is serving as a museum exhibit and is for sale, the last buyer that seemed interested was planning to move it to Maco and convert it to a hotel like the Queen Mary is in the United States. All three of these hauls were sold to China as scrap as they were considered no longer seaworthy. The Russian Federation still has one carrier haul about half completed that Putin has a fantasy of completing someday.

On the aircraft the J-11’s are in fact reverse engineered Su-27 and Su-30, China has built about a 100 of both airframes. the are considered to be just another failure and are like the J-8, J-6 and J-5 to be mostly targets, all, are based on Hainan Island in the South China Sea. The J-10, which is a morophidate of the Mirage 2000/ Israel IAL Lavi and the US F-16A built mostly by Israeli engineers on contract to China is still and unknown. It is seldom flown. The airframe appears to be an F-16 front end with canards and a Lavi back side with a Russian engine (Su-27 era) and French and Israeli fire control and avionics. It is noted that Israeli AF much prefers the US F-16’s and F-15’s to it’s home made fighter/attack aircraft. The J-10 production so far is 120 aircraft and is on hold pending an expected by from Pakistan, for the production to break even the PRC must export about 300 J-10’s a very unlikely happening. The Existing Su-27’s (76–100) and the attack variant the Su-30 (30 in the PLAN, the MK2 variant and 24 in the PLAF the KK variant) these are old 60–70 technology and long out of Russian production, they are them most capable air craft the chinese have. An AF Major who post a couple of weeks ago here called them “Ace Makers” for the USAF.

The S-300/S-400 radars. China has an unknown number of systems, est about 100 all are based in Beijing Provence, the are of the S-300PM variant with what ever technological changes Chins may have made, although not confirmed by the US the S-300PM appears to be the system used in the BMD demo a few weeks ago. The S-400 (S-300-PM3) the only change from the S-300PM2 is an over the horizon radar is currently being fielded by The Russian Federation, one unit is “operational” a second is due in December and two more in 2011. Production has been stopped and these four are what was in production when it was stopped pending a design for the S-500 due, when ever. No S-400 ADS will be exported especially to China.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron you say I’m confused, I didnt retire that long ago and china has the manpower for it’s NAVY which does not sit next to the pier as often as you claim, I was on too many sub patrols trying to track numerous other subs to fall for any liberal claims or congressional reports of our enemies not being able to put thier ships to sea, be a threat to us, or require us to build more ships. And any diesel boat once it goes onto its batteries can evade us unless we go active sonar and give away our position period. And the ruskies are still building new ships and subs regardless of what has been said and they are still going to sea, but unlike us they flat told everyone they are going to build them at reduced cost rather than inflated like our contractors do.

CONTINUED: I dont google my knowledge — I either lived for my 24 years of active duty or I’m doing it right now in my current job for the military. I’ll admit when I’m wrong but I’m not on this one. The Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans dont build thier military equipment on the front page like we do, The Russian Alpha and Typhoons were at sea before we even knew they existed, and they still operate that way (WALL or NO WALL).

Damn, Boomer! I like the way you think!

Good Afternoon Boomer,

Just think about it for a moment Boomer. These old Romeo’s and Mings have been sitting at their piers for a decade or more, with out any crews. Overhead imaging have shown that more then a few of them have sunk at their moorings, not unlike most of the old Soviet submarine fleet.

These boats are not going to sea agin, even for China.

To compare the Chinese and Soviet submarine building is like comparing the US and French nuclear carriers construction.

Boomer as you know from your 24 years of service, naval ships are like women they don’t age well when sailed hard and long. After awhile new lipstick (overhauls) just doesn’t do it anymore.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron, Ive seen the graveyards up close and personal. these are not thier operations ports though. They like the russians rotate their subs which are located in isolated ports one for one just so sattelite imagery makes it look like it hasnt moved, (we have done it as well more than once). I have been under ice in the adriatic and other locations and witnessed it occuring first hand. It’s kind of hard to ignore a sub going by you while your rigged for ultra quiet, here it blow to the surface and another open ballast tanks and go by you, then when you punch your scope and sensors through the ice you see them blowing the ice with steam to melt it back together around the sub. You cant believe everything you read in pamplets and articles, it’s just propaganda to give you a false sense of security. Just like everyone in the government scoffed when Binladen blatantly said the next attack will be against the American peole directly on thier soil when he didnt get the response he wanted on the Cole bombing. Turns out the government was wrong werent they.

Byron:

The confusion and lack of current knowledge seem to be on your side of the equation I’m afraid. Lets start at the top of your rant:

The ex-Varyag has been in active construction and retrofit for at least 12 months and is being completely rebuilt. The most recent work has been to add phased array radar as found on the 052C, and the Sea Eagle search radar from the 054A. See photos at the attached link below:

http://​china​-pla​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​1​/​l​a​t​e​s​t​-​f​rom

The J-11 is a reverse engineered SU-30, but as usual you left out the part about the indigenous avionics and new X-band AESA radar which is being tested in the new J-11B. Both the J-11A and J-11B enjoy a much greater use of composite materials then their Russian brethren, giving them superior range and speed. The combination of modern materials and upgraded avionics/radar make these fighters a completely new aircraft.

Your comments on the J-10 are also inaccurate. There are approximately 198 J-10A in service at this time and they seem to be flying quite well thank you. The J-10A is in production with another 3 regiments due to get new aircraft in the near future (120 fighters). This will bring the total number of J-10A’s to well over 300 aircraft. There are currently 4 J-10B fighter prototypes flying at this time. It is a true 4.5 generation fighter with a new DSI intake, indigenous IRST, and new X-band AESA radar flown first in the J-11. An export variant of the J-10B will be sold to Pakistan in the near future.

On the topic of SAM missile systems, you seem to again be regurgitating old information. While the Chinese considered the purchase of the S400, the new reverse engineered HQ-9 is now so good that it has eliminated the need to purchase further systems from Russia. The combination of the many existing S300 installations, with the growing number of new HQ-9 sites has transformed Chinese airspace into one of the most heavily protected areas in the world.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-061209–1.htm

Good Morning Folks,

To poster Cocidius, what ever you say. I see your source and am quite familiar with them and I don’t quote them.

You information on production, operational fielding and electronics is simply not supported by any western military authority. Sorry but taking anything from either Russia or China at face value is not advisable.

The US can count airplanes on the ground and in the air, and the Us can capture signals and if the numbers you are putting up could be verified the USAF would make them front page news to justify the now defunct F-22 and the F-35. This would be the best rationalization they cold have for these uber expensive projects.

On the S-400 (S-300PM3) the Russians are not going to export any of the four in the production stream and China would be among the last to get this technology.

I would say currently India is way ahead of China in strategic technology. India does in fact have carriers (Soviet Kiev Class) in the water, has purchased carrier air craft from Russia. India does test fire ballistic their “real“missiles and has test fired a BM that has enough range to strike Beijing. India is flying the Mig 29 and according to an agreement this week will by the end of the Century be in production of the Mig 35. India has built a nuclear submarine (Severodvinsk Class) that appears to very seaworthy and are in the process of “leasing” at least two of Russia’s most modern Akula II Class SSN’s.

China is behind the curve.

To Boomer. I would be the last to doubt any personal experiences of those who served. We all saw many thing things that we were told never happened. I’m sure your not saying that if it came to war between the US and China that there is any question who would win. I do agree with you that there are two kinds of ships/boats submarines and targets.

China does have ambitions but I would doubt that they are going to tray and use military force outside there sphere of influence. What we should be concerned with are the “overseas Chinese”, those first and second generation Chinese with divided loyalties, this is also the case with other nationalities also. A look back at espionage cases in the US since the end of WW II these are the folks that tend to be involved.

To those who want an example, look no farther then the W-88 plans that disappeared for Lawrence Livermore Labs.

Historically I think this would be China’s preferred way to increase its influence on the United States. Call it a soft invasion if you like.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Just sign a peace treaty with this guys and we don’t need to worry any upgrades or war. And that wont even cost us a dollar in military modernization.

Byron:

There are multiple places documenting the work occurring on the ex-Varyag, and you can go to Google Earth and view the massive rebuilding process yourself with your own eyes. I quote from multiple reliable sources that I will share with you anytime you feel the need (Janes, Sinodefence, Information Dissemination, APA, Federation of American Scientists, Rand Corporation, etc).

In the future I will not be responding to your rants unless you can have the common decency to use current intelligence information, not data that’s five to 10 years old.

As usual, its been real, and its been fun, but its not been real fun.…

Boomer:

I have attached some interesting websites that have documented some of the recent developments in Chinese Submarine Program. Some of these are:

1. Construction of a very large and sophisticated underground submarine base at Hainan Island, and the deployment of one of the two existing new type 094 SSBN’s to this facility.

2. The purchase of the 12 Kilo Class diesel/electric submarines.

3. The development of the reverse engineered copy of the Kilo, the Yuan Class 039A of which two have been built to date.

http://​www​.fas​.org/​b​l​o​g​/​s​s​p​/​2​0​0​8​/​0​4​/​n​e​w​-​c​h​i​n​e​s​e-s

And from the very good Sinodefence site:

http://​www​.sinodefence​.com/​n​a​v​y​/​s​u​b​/​d​e​f​a​u​l​t​.​asp

Good Morning Folks,

OK Cocldlus, I will grant that everything you maintain is absolutely correct, So according to you China has oh lets say 7–800 first line fighter attack aircraft, the PLAAF/PLAN has a 90% readiness of it aircraft and can some how get a 50 year old aircraft carrier haul in the fleet and although they have none yet can build some carrier bases aircraft.

Now we have the USN/USAF vs, the PLAAF and PLAN. I will even spot you that all of the Chinese aircraft are at least equal to or superior to the US’s F/A-18 E/F’s, F-15 E/F’s, F-16D’s and of course our F-22’s. and don’t forget the P-3’s. The Chinese are lacking only one little thing. Their is more combat experience in a single US cockpit then the entire PLAAF and the Plan.

I will even handicap the US more and say that Boomers submariner buddies decided to sit this one out and all of the 72 or what ever Chinese subs put to sea with 100% readiness

By Chinese own estimation one carrier battle group off our coast is a political statement two carrier battle groups are a problem.

The US wins, hands down.

If China went to war today and engaged it “phantom” air force on a regular bases for a decade it would still be a generation behind the United States in experienced combat aviators.

Boomer. The Hainan Is. facility is not new, I know that it has a single Type 094 Jin down there, it made the voyage south on the surface by the way, you say the Second Type 094 been launched, ok. The problem like that of Russia is the missiles, you forgot to mention that the Jl-2SLBM for these boats has yet to be built, that’s why they are in wet storage on Nainan Island.

On the Kilos, in the water right now China has two Kilo M’s the two other Kilos that are waiting for an overhaul and China has 6, or according to your math 8 Kilo’s on order for Russia, for a decade or more now. I believe that the Kilo’s are no longer being manufactured by Russia any longer, any foreign transfers would have to be made out of what is left in the Russian Federations Navy and at least six of those are going to Vietnam.

On the Yuan you are correct the Chinese have two, they also have their Song Class 0f 16–24 which they are producing at a rate of 2–3 a year, which from what I’ve read is a more successful haul then the Yuan. It was a Song that popped up and took some postcard pictures of the Kitty Hawk for the boys in Beijing awhile back.

I noticed that you prudently did not mention either the Xia Class SSBM (the boat in the picture with this post) or the Han Class SSN Chinese build nuclear boats of which there also are two I believe.

Again Boomer I would think that this collection of scrap iron would present little problem for the USN.

To address Cocldlus statement about the timeliness of my information, I endeavor to be careful and not believe everything I read in Sino or Russo Daily’s, most of the information is very much intended for the foreign media’s consumption and most of it turns out to be little more then propaganda that does age the information a bit I agree.

But to fill your requirements for fresh information, yesterday The Russian Federation and India finally signed an agreement for that old Kiev Class Carrier and for 45 Mig-29’s and a manufacturing deal for India to build 160 Mig-35I’s, India says that it intends to start production of the Mig-35I by 2015–6, that is even before the “announced” Russia date of 2017.

I don’t think that with this deal and the deal with Vietnam that The Russian Federation any longer considers itself a prime weapons system supplier to China any longer. In short “The Game in Asia Has Changed”.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Maybe we need to place/ install underwater sea radars along 20 ft. wide territorial sea bedrock perimeter borders to have early warning detection of incoming Chinese, Russian, Iranian or N. Korean Subs or missile boats.

And perhaps maybe it will help our (USA) defense at 100 ft interval layout.

Good Evening Roland,

I would like to comment on your idea, but can’t. I think that it would be safe to assume that this is not a new idea.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Chinese and Russian Subs crossing our bordes in the past is a threat and a reality. Chinese and Russian deisel subs are quit and maybe hard to detect by our sub radar, but maybe by a different underwater radar platform, we maybe able to detect these subs early in the future before they can do any harm to our country. Say a modified underwater Mead radar and defense system may do the trick to protect our territorial waters and our country (USA) from any future threat.

I agree. We (USA) need to do something about it before it become a threat.

Perhaps it was just immitating what we have done in te pass when two of our ships was in their territorial waters. But we still needed to install the underwater radars as a cotigency for early detection and to thwart any future threat.

Good Morning Roland,

Interesting, it was common knowledge during the Cold War that Soviet submarines would encroach into US waters, sometimes they had to be escorted back out into international waters by US SSN’s, but Chinese submarines, could you perhaps give some times and locations of such an events?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I’m not sure if this Chinese Subs have encroach in our (USA) territory but the past news indicate the Chinese subs suddenly pops up in the middle of US Naval exercise in the Pacific w/o being detected.

http://​www​.dailymail​.co​.uk/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​4​9​2​8​0​4​/Th

Who are you Byron Skinner? You profess to be a defense guru and post on defense sites as if it were your job.

The underwater sonar/ sensors have been around for years around coastlines and choke points. problem is that they are passive sonar (only listen) If you have a good crew you can go right past them without being detected, diesel boats can do it even easier than nuke boats. Active sonar is the only sure fire way to detect a sub but it put a lot of energy into the water and fries anything around it so it’s not used much. North Korea and China are always scuttleing old ships and barges in the middle of the night to make it a obstacle course underwater to keep subs away.

Currently China as North Korea stay pretty close to home, but have been as far as Guam. Once they are fully up on Nuke boat operations I see them encroaching on Hawaii and the US mainland more often. Byron is correct in that we chased many ruskie boats off our coastlines that were trying to lie in wait for our SSBn’s to leave port so they could monitor thier patrol areas and do sound cuts..

The exact location of the encroachment was in the Pacific waters between Japan and Taiwan while our (USA) navy and NATO were performng naval exercises and not in USA territorial waters, my mistake. But I brought this topic , to alert our military and naval Tink-Tank/ designers that China has this type of electric-deasil submarines.

Sonar radar are used by our (USA) are none effective on tracking Nuclear Chinese electric-deasil submarines because it does not make sounds like ordinary submarines.

Our naval forces should do more and find ways to track these Nuclear Chinese Subs right away. Especially if they do encroach our territorial waters.

Probably an ordinary fish finder equipment can track this quit– Chinese electric-deisel sbmarines. I will leave that to our (USA) scientist.

Agree with cutting spending but raise taxes? On who? The productive are already paying over half their income in taxes. Guess you never read Ayn Rand?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.