Comments on: US-Chinese Anti-Submarine Cat and Mouse Game in South China Sea

By: Lawlawme

Lawlawme — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:52:35 +0000

The U.S. has every right to be in international waters…but the Chinese have the right to shadow them…but some would call it harassment. If a Chinese sub was close to the American shores the U.S. would do the same. As for their track record, the U.S. is simply the aggressor; the Chinese at this time is just projecting power that they don’t really possess. I believe is just a policy to show their citizens that the CCP can withstand foreign invasion and thus are legitimate rulers. The CCP fears their people more then an actual foreign invasion.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:48:11 +0000

[Edited] I was an anti-submarine operator from 1977 to 1992 on the S-3A/B aircraft. I also worked for the reasearch and development company that developed the SURTASS and TACTASS systems. In light of these comments it seems to me that the US has made a mistake taking the S-3 platform off the carriers as they are our best tactical defense of the carrier battle group not to diminish the roles of the SH-3 and other helo assets in these groups. It seems to me that ASW is here to stay and we should have never taken this asset our of our carrier groups they should have updated the S-3 into a more modern platform. I know for a fact both sides US and chinese as well as many other nations are operating submarines to exercise their sea command and control for thier nations. That being said it would be negligent of any nation not to monitor submarine activity in any way that they can. ASW has allways been a cat and mouse game with risk, although a few incidents have occured, the fact is that saftey of the seas and ships therein have had a good record overall. Also, here's the link Chad was referring to, I believe. A Song class diesel electric boat hard to detect on batteries. They won that round. That gives creedence to my comment on the S-3 platform on our carriers.

By: Yullian

Yullian — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:34:31 +0000

[Edited] Even if China grows its naval capability into the blue seas, so what? Why do we have to assume that only US has the right to police international waters? Is it because it has a better regard on human right? Well, US’s human right claim is a joke. Historically and presently.

Reply: All countries have the right to operate in international waters, regardless of their human rights record – China included. The issue is how growing Chinese naval capabilities will influence how Japan and other countries in the region see their own security affected by those capabilities, and what counter-measures they will develop in response. That could increase military competition and tension in the region and thus undermine everyone’s security. The challenge is how to develop a security framework in the region that limits military competition and increases the security for all countries. Got any ideas? HK

By: Chad Lietz

Chad Lietz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:03:00 +0000

[Edited] I believe the Chinese or any nation should be concerned in regards to any obvious intelligence gathering directed at specific military installations; however, current international laws specificly identify international waters. 75 miles out is considered international waters.

Living in Seattle I can without any doubt say, as I have witnessed first-hand, that the Chinese and Russian governments operate military surveillance vessels within 11 miles from the Bangor submarine base and have actually crossed over in to US territorial waters on at least 2 occasions within the last 10 years. On all occasions the US Navy and or Coast Guard has boarded for “safety” inspections and has even in one case that I know of seized advanced sonar equipment from the vessels.

So it’s the pot calling the kettle black so to speak. All countries conduct illict spying, but to what extent civillians never know.

I would like to say that China has the right to protect their terrortories just as any country does. I find the whole Taiwan issue a thorn in the side of both the US and China. I mean how would the US feel if China sided with Alaska in breaking away from the union? Remember the US has had one civil war already where states have tried to leave the Union. I think if politicians stopped to reflex on issues before they pledge support, the world would be less complex.

I am not a China apologist either. China has been allowed to break international laws pertaining to commerce for years. For one they are the only country on earth that does not have their currency valued as all other countries do on the international market; therefore, the Chinese currency is under valued which allows them a more than biais advantage pertaining to the marketing of their own goods and services.

Reply: Your point about specific cases of Chinese and Russian operations near Bangor in the last 10 years is interesting. Can you reference to news articles or other material so we can learn more?

Just a note on “international waters” and how far from shore they begin. Simply speaking it’s anything beyond 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles) from shore, but two other zones provide some national jurisdiction beyond national territorial waters: The Contiguous Zone extends 12 nautical miles beyond territorial waters, and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends out to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (230 miles) from the mean low water mark. So true international waters only exist beyond the EEZ, which sometimes confuses some countries to make territorial claims beyond the 12 nautical miles territorial waters. HK

By: Mike Donavan

Mike Donavan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:50:40 +0000

It is possible that the new class of super quiet Chinese submarines would be able to hit capital ships in the American CBGs in the forseeable future using torpedo-tube launched anti ship cruise missiles. It would be wise for the American to withdraw into their backyards before they suffer a huge embarassment similar to the Korean War.

Reply: Not that we expect the missile to begin flying anytime soon. But I find it hard to see U.S. carrier battle groups suddenly being sitting ducks to Chinese torpedoes and cruise missiles after decades of Cold War where they were chased by Soviet submarines, battle group, and naval aviation. Russia’s newest and quietest Akula II class attack submarine was recently detected off the U.S. east coast, so when you say “super quiet Chinese submarines” I wonder how quiet you think they are. Not to belittle the Chinese capabilities and the difficulties of anti-submarine warfare, but I wonder what their battle capabilities actually are. HK

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:37:29 +0000

Every nation has the right and the basic need to protect it’s self, but there is a limit. I am an American and I know I would be awfully concerned and upset if China parked a “civilian” listening ship off our coast. Let there be no doubt, if the shoe where on the other foot we would be howling mad. We need to stop and rethink our defense goals. Otherwise we are going to find ourselves neck deep in rough seas.

Just today it was announced that a Chinese submarine was able to penetrate our defense network and surface right next to the USS Kitty Hawk. So much for our technical superiority. Passed 13 surface ships and 2 Seawolf attack submarines. If this doesn’t cause the US to rethink it’s capabilities and that of the Chinese people nothing will and we will end up paying for it later on. Maybe even sooner than later.

Reply: Where was it announced today that “a Chinese submarine was able to penetrate our defense network and surface right next to the USS Kitty Hawk….Passed 13 surface ships and 2 Seawolf attack submarines”? HK

By: Arthur Borges

Arthur Borges — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:50:47 +0000

Some of the postings let me infer that China aims to challenge US naval supremacy worldwide or even attempt to do the sort of seafloor mapping the Impeccable was fooling with.

As noted here, Chinese submarines seem to be sticking close to shore, well within the perimeter of coastal defenses.

I think some folks are reading the Chinese mindset wrong: they’re traders, not conquistadors. They’re way too thrifty to operate oversized armed forces. They will however, spend and do what it takes to defend their territorial integrity, including harassment of reconnaissance platforms outside the three or 12nm territorial water limit.

Moreover, you have an issue of face: a surface ship is hard to ignore — one contributor suggests a Seawolf-class platform could have done the job more quietly. If this is a true, then we have a political move by the USN to undermine the White House. Personally, I don’t buy the argument that a Seawolf-class submarine, operating solo, would trigger more than close observation and carefully spooned-out harassment: the PLA simply does not have the outgoing militancy of its US counterpart.

By: choong wah

choong wah — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:52:58 +0000

Share with you,

According to Malaysia’s EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE ACT 1984, which sounds like this:

16. (1) No marine scientific research may be conducted in the
exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf without the
express consent of and subject to conditions imposed by the
Government.
(2) Subject to section 17, the Government shall give its consent
where the marine scientific research would be carried out by any
State or competent international organization for peaceful purposes
and to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment.

Therefore, this is the reason why Malaysia did not support U.S in this case.

By: paco

paco — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:04:53 +0000

I am enclosing an old article from November of 2004 where the Chinese apologize because a technical glitch caused them to sail a submarine into a narrow channel directly into Japanese territorial waters, In case anyone has any doubts, it is completely impossible for a submarine to accidently make this kind of mistake,
Re-emphasize that the 2004 incident was in “territorial” waters. It was not a piece of the “Japan’s EEZ” that Japan would rather not have surveillance ships sailing through.
==================================
Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2004
Beijing says tech glitch led to sub intrusion
By REIJI YOSHIDA
Staff writer
China extended an apology Tuesday to Tokyo after admitting that one of
its submarines intruded into Japan’s territorial waters off Okinawa
last week, an incident it laid to “technical errors,” Japanese
officials said. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei met Tuesday
morning with Japanese Ambassador Koreshige Anami in Beijing and
apologized for the sub intrusion, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki
Hosoda told reporters in Tokyo. According to Hosoda, the vice minister
did not give details of the “technical errors,” which the minister
said took place during “the process of normal training.” The vice
minister called the incident “regrettable,” a remark Tokyo interprets
as an apology, Hosoda said.
The Defense Agency will study if “technical errors” could lead a
nuclear-powered submarine into the narrow channel between islands,
Hosoda added. The sub, while running submerged, strayed Nov. 10 into
Japanese waters near Ishigaki Island, roughly 400 km southwest of
Okinawa Island. Japan initially refrained from directly blaming China.
But on Friday, it started publicly criticizing Beijing and demanded an
apology for the intrusion after confirming the sub was heading for
Chinese territorial waters in the East China Sea. The incident came
amid bilateral relations that have been strained over a series of
issues, and the two countries were having difficulty arranging for a
top-level dialogue between their leaders. Speaking to reporters
earlier in the day, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed hope
that a meeting can be arranged between him and Chinese President Hu
Jintao later this month on the sidelines of the annual summit of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Chile. Koizumi told
reporters that instead of using a diplomatic gripe as a reason for not
holding a meeting, “We should hold it because we have a problem.”

By: paco

paco — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:45:27 +0000

Seawolf vs Impeccable for surveillance,
Even if a Seawolf can do surveillance more discreetly, a Seawolf is a multi-BILLION dollar piece of equipment with a large military crew that is a weapon of war. The Impeccable is a multi-million dollar unarmed vessel with a civilian crew that is custom designed for long station keeping and doing surveillance.
——
Surveillance is NOT a covert activity. It is openly conducted on the high seas by unarmed vessels and other types of equipment (like SOSUS arrays). It is not spying, it is monitoring the open oceans for submarine activity. I realize that the Chinese government considers 75 miles from shore to be their territory, but territorial waters are only 12 nm from shore.