Reply: The ONI report is from 2009, so I assume the chart is up to the same date. HK

I’ve been a devoted reader for some time, but there is one thing I have not heard mentioned yet–active signature cancellation. Think Bose headphones in approach, but with a radical military-centric design. I cannot name my sources and or provide ‘proof’, as such. However, I do have it on good account that this is something available to the U.S. fleet (as of 08). If U.S. subs were as quiet as claimed before, now they really are a hole in the water. Furthermore, ANY U.S. nuke boat CAN run on batteries alone (just like their AIP cousins), albeit with performance limitations and other restrictions, but it is doable. I only mention it as it is something people either overlook or are ignorant of. My point here is that China has a LONG way to go before it can filed a truly formidable blue fleet, even beneath the surface.

Also, the East China Sea is a terrible place to use as a submarine patrol station. It’s average depth is 30-90 meters, with a relatively calm surface. What this means is that the United States can locate and maybe track submarines under way in that body of water using, in part, ‘special’ satellites in LEO. They are equipped with highly classified sensor payloads that contain very sensitive electro-optical and electromagnetic packages. This is not a new capability, nor one fully operational or wholly encompassing, and many nations have taken a stab at it through the years. Even though this alternative has inherent shortfalls in both the method and application of, it remains one of the best remote and unobstructed ways of detecting and tracking a sub.

Because conventional subs aren’t fast enough. Best conventional AIP subs like Type-212 can do “only” 20 knots at best when submerged. Los-Angeles goes over 30 knots.

Reply: This is, of course, the Shang class, which, even with this technology, is more detectable than the Russian Delta III SSBN, a class designed more than 40 years ago. Can you, Ted, or someone else, say a little more about who wrote the article attributing “natural circulation” reactor cooling to the Shang? HK

You want a quiet sub? It should always be a conventional sub, creeping 2 knots per hour on electric motor. No nuclear sub is really quiet, they are built for endurance and speed and that’s all that matter. The faster it go the better.

Reply: Rather than thrashing people who are “dumber” than you, why not enlighten them with your knowledge. You could start by backing up your claim: “The latest Chinese boomers are as noisy as the American ohio class SSBN,” and answering your own question: “What’s noisy anyway?”

Yes, modern conventional subs can be quieter than nuclear subs. The ONI report includes one chart for nuclear and another for conventional subs. But even the Chinese conventional subs are not as quiet as the ones they have acquired from Russia. And if conventional subs are so superior why then does the US Navy only operate nuclear subs? HK

Reply: There are more rumors than facts out there. It’s plausible, but who knows? Do you have a link to the article? HK

Reply: No, it is not correct that the CAPTOR mine can be armed with a nuclear warhead. The CAPTOR mine does not have nuclear capability. Even so, if deployed off Chinese ports in a war, the CAPTOR would certainly create problems for Chinese submarine operations. The mine is designed to acoustically detect submarines while ignoring surface ships. Upon detection of a target, the mine launches an acoustic homing Torpedo Mk 46Mod 6. HK

Off late the Indians have been exercising with the US a lot and it would not be a surprise that the US has already passed on the Chinese Sub signatures to the Indians !!!

Reply: We do, a chart produced by ONI in 1995, which plots US, British (interestingly), Russian, and Chinese (except the Jin SSBN) submarine noise levels. Jeffrey Lewis has it posted on his blog. HK