Chinese and Indian SSBNs are unnecessary and destabilizing US Think Tank

[axisofevil]

There are ways to hide your assets, just find the plane with your super-duper military satellites, and then send a standard search & rescue ship around that place, two days later claim that your ship has found it!!

Submarines, no matter how primitive or how noisy they are, still they are very difficult to detect, some countries spread fictions as part of their military propaganda.

So you lack knowledge of it, therefore it doesn't exist. If the US could create and install a system like ECHELON around the world in the 1950's, what makes you think what I'm saying doesn't exist? There are Sats can search and track subs but the limiting factor is depth and Sat nagivation. Hence, the R&D focus on such parameters has increased...



China built underwater passive sonars on and near it coastlines this year. The US did it back during the cold war or earlier. You can deduce the US is far, far ahead. The point is placement of such sensors and sonars is subject to a variety of reasons where it is placed. Just because a plane crashed into the ocean doesn't mean it's around such devices. Nor would the US like to expose what it has in its arsenal.


Electronic Weapons: China Builds A SOSUS

So much for propaganda


Of course, development will always focus on countering it. In which case, Russia has created some incredibly quiet subs but I figure more attention should be paid attention to the movement of water as the subs passes than noise alone. Or use the density and chemical properties of the metal in the water to find it but this requires $$$ of research, time and development.




Just because India lacks the ability to find noisy subs doesn't mean others are in the same position. As for the plane, it is in all probability in pieces. As for hiding you assets, the US is not dealing with India's capabilities but Russia and China which are superior. Big difference...

 

[HariPrasad]

You are daydreaming again, kiddo.

Pentagon Sees China Progressing on SLBM | Arms Control Association

In the report, the Defense Department says it expects the JL-2 to have a range of 7,400 kilometers.

Of course wiki and every chinese internet kid knows better than US Defence Department.

The problem with the Chinese members is that If we claim something they will ask for the proof. E G BMD. they ask for video and lots of other proof. When I asked about the proof of MIRV in chinese missile, one member posted one Photo of chinese missile having curved top and said that look at the top. Since it is curved it has MIRV. If we say that Agni V has 9000 KM range and go much beyond that with lighter warhead, they will question that but they would like us to believe that JL 2 has a 12 K KM range. In fact is is not known whether JL 2 get the IOC or not?

The 2013 Report To Congress Of The U.S.-China Economic And Security Review Commission reported in November 2013 that "China’s Julang-2 (JL–2) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) is expected to reach initial operational capability by late 2013. The JL–2, when mated with the PLA Navy’s JIN-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent. The JIN SSBN/JL–2 weapon system will have a range of approximately 4,000 nautical miles (nm), allowing the PLA Navy to target the continental United States from China’s littoral waters. China has deployed three JIN SSBNs and probably will field two additional units by 2020. China also is developing its next generation SSBN, the Type 096, which likely will improve the range, mobility, stealth, and lethality of the PLA Navy’s nuclear deterrent."
Even specification says that it is a 7500 KM range. CEP is very poor at 500 M.

Specifications
ContractorAcademy of Rocket Motors Technology - ARMT
ConfigurationThree Stage
Length [meters]10+
Diameter [meters]2.0
Mass [kilograms]20,000+
PropellantSolid
GuidanceInertial
First Flight19
IOC19
DeploymentType 094 SSBN
Range (km)7,500-8,000
Re-entry Vehicle Mass (kg)700 kg
Warhead Yield3 or 4 MIRV @ 90 kT
1 @ 250-1000 kT
CEP (meters)500 ??

JL-2 (CSS-NX-14) - China Nuclear Forces

 

[Echo_419]

If we have to use them, we surely will.

Do you know that America has a "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines, yet they did not stop China from seizing the Scarborough shoal in 2012?

Apparently they believe that these weapons are not just for show, or they wouldn't have abandoned their ally.

Same story with Russia and Crimea. America promised to protect Ukraine's borders in 1994, in exchange for them giving up their nukes.

But when push came to shove in 2014, Americans realized that they did not want to fight a nuclear war with Russia over Crimea.

Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other side is willing to use their nukes. And apparently America believes it, so MAD still applies.

On the day they stop believing it, we may see some American troops trying to take back Crimea from Russia, and Scarborough shoal from China.

Just like the French & the Brits promise to protect Poland,west should not be trusted on these matters

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

American Logic:- You should not become stronger then what we are Or you are risking world war 3.

 

[BuddhaPalm]

Shining India shupa-powa is a threat to USA! It must be stopped!

 

[ice bomb]

I said for the upgraded version. Learn to read.

JL-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sigh...nobody bothered to explain to you the difference between wiki and US defence department?

It depends the payload.

With the maximum payload, even the Trident II only got 7400 km.

BTW, China's miniaturization technology of the ICBM has been undergone for years. The most apparent example is from DF-31 to DF-31A.

With shorter size but longer range.

The difference lies in the fact that US subs can go anywhere they want undetected, can chinese SSBNs claim the same?

You believe your SSBNs can sneak past USN?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The difference lies in the fact that US subs can go anywhere they want undetected, can chinese SSBNs claim the same?

You believe your SSBNs can sneak past USN?

With a weaker surface fleet, that's why we are looking for a longer ranged ICBM and SLBM such as DF-41 and JL-3 to compensate our weakness.

We are in a serious geographical disadvantage compared to other nuclear powers, but we won't sit there and do nothing.

 

[dray]

So you lack knowledge of it, therefore it doesn't exist.

And you could not show any proof that it exists.

If the US could create and install a system like ECHELON around the world in the 1950's, what makes you think what I'm saying doesn't exist? There are Sats can search and track subs but the limiting factor is depth and Sat nagivation. Hence, the R&D focus on such parameters has increased...

Does US know the real-time locations of all crappy, noisy, low-tech Chinese & Indian subs, and all other low-tech subs around the world?

China built underwater passive sonars on and near it coastlines this year. The US did it back during the cold war or earlier. You can deduce the US is far, far ahead. The point is placement of such sensors and sonars is subject to a variety of reasons where it is placed. Just because a plane crashed into the ocean doesn't mean it's around such devices. Nor would the US like to expose what it has in its arsenal.

Electronic Weapons: China Builds A SOSUS

So much for propaganda

What? A N-sub with long-range SLBMs can just hide anywhere in any of the seas at a considerable depth and stay put for month's before the conflict, how does some sonars near coastline or in some key places help?

Of course, development will always focus on countering it. In which case, Russia has created some incredibly quiet subs but I figure more attention should be paid attention to the movement of water as the subs passes than noise alone. Or use the density and chemical properties of the metal in the water to find it but this requires $$$ of research, time and development.

Quieter subs are surely better, but it is not easy to find out a so-called noisy n-sub also that can hide thousands of miles away from its target, it will still remain similar to finding a needle in a haystack. People claim a lot of things, then incidents like Malaysian jet, or the 9/11 incident give us a reality check.

Just because India lacks the ability to find noisy subs doesn't mean others are in the same position.

Many others are in a better position than India, but I repeat, do they know the real-time positions of all noisier subs around the world?

As for the plane, it is in all probability in pieces.

So? Black boxes are designed to survive plane crashes, they are also designed to burn in jet fuel for hours without damaging its insides, MH 370's black box sent homing signal for a full-month, it's just that nobody could track it.

As for hiding you assets, the US is not dealing with India's capabilities but Russia and China which are superior. Big difference...

WHAT KIND OF BLABBERING IS THIS? I just asked what stopped USA from just finding the Malaysian plane with their super-duper military satellites, and then send a standard search & rescue ship around that place, and two days later claim that the ship has found it, in case they wanted to hide their satellites' capabilities!! You have no answer, right?

 

[Otocal]

Not a single Indian SSBN is/will be pointed at the USA or its NATO allies.

This think tank should calm the f down.

Chinese SSBN naturally pointed at all NATO states.

 

[dray]

Shining India shupa-powa is a threat to USA! It must be stopped!

India is not, neither is shupa-powa China.

And you should consider dropping Buddha's name from your PDF handle before posting such crap.

 

[axisofevil]

Not a single Indian SSBN is/will be pointed at the USA or its NATO allies.

This think tank should calm the f down.

Chinese SSBN naturally pointed at all NATO states.

The issue is not who its pointed out. It's more about the dilema it causes for the region and then the world. Arm's race, less focus on other priorities, etc. But it's complicated....

And you could not show any proof that it exists.



Does US know the real-time locations of all crappy, noisy, low-tech Chinese & Indian subs, and all other low-tech subs around the world?

I don't know.....I don't work for the USN.

What? A N-sub with long-range SLBMs can just hide anywhere in any of the seas at a considerable depth and stay put for month's before the conflict, how does some sonars near coastline or in some key places help?


Hey clueless. If one can add passive sonars near the coastline to detect subs, the next course of step would be to develop tech that could be elsewhere.

Quieter subs are surely better, but it is not easy to find out a so-called noisy n-sub also that can hide thousands of miles away from its target, it will still remain similar to finding a needle in a haystack. People claim a lot of things, then incidents like Malaysian jet, or the 9/11 incident give us a reality check.


9/11 was not an unknown threat. There was intel that was overlooked and filed away. The Jet incident reveals that civilian airliners aren't using the latest GPS tech. The cost is the biggest inhibiting factor.


Many others are in a better position than India, but I repeat, do they know the real-time positions of all noisier subs around the world?

Do you think such info would be readily available on the internet. Repeat that to yourself.

So? Black boxes are designed to survive plane crashes, they are also designed to burn in jet fuel for hours without damaging its insides, MH 370's black box sent homing signal for a full-month, it's just that nobody could track it.

Think about it. What is the depth of the area where the plane crashed? What is the unclassified depth of Subs? Repeat that to yourself.

WHAT KIND OF BLABBERING IS THIS? I just asked what stopped USA from just finding the Malaysian plane with their super-duper military satellites, and then send a standard search & rescue ship around that place, and two days later claim that the ship has found it, in case they wanted to hide their satellites' capabilities!! You have no answer, right?

Can't you comprehend english? Why would the US (if it has such capability) expose their assets? For the benefit of mankind, when every single day, folks like yourself will say anything to put them in a bad light without knowing all the facts? Just the reports from the news which all tends to be biased depending on your location. Keep on blabbering, you keep on exposing yourself.

 

[dray]

Can't you comprehend english? Why would the US (if it has such capability) expose their assets? For the benefit of mankind, when every single day, folks like yourself will say anything to put them in a bad light without knowing all the facts? Just the reports from the news which all tends to be biased depending on your location. Keep on blabbering, you keep on exposing yourself.

Can't you comprehend English? Or are you just plain stupid?

1. USA could just find out secretly the Malaysian plane with their super-duper military satellites that you are claiming they have.

2. Then USA could just send one or two standard search & rescue ship around that place just for helping in search.

3. Two days later USA could just claim that their search & rescue ships have found the plane.

What is the problem with that? That plane could have been found, USA could show why they are superior, and everybody would have believed that USA ships have found it.

Now come up with a logical answer or just quit.

 

[dray]

@axisofevil

I don't know.....I don't work for the USN.

You know nothing, you only know that USA can easily track all Chinese & Indian subs anywhere in the sea, right?

Hey clueless. If one can add passive sonars near the coastline to detect subs, the next course of step would be to develop tech that could be elsewhere.

Elsewhere doesn't mean everywhere, do you have any idea about how big the oceans are?

9/11 was not an unknown threat. There was intel that was overlooked and filed away. The Jet incident reveals that civilian airliners aren't using the latest GPS tech. The cost is the biggest inhibiting factor.

Terrorists kept on banging planes on different things over a period of time, some passengers also phoned home to inform the hijack, yet USA couldn't do anything to secure their sky.

Do you think such info would be readily available on the internet. Repeat that to yourself.

But you seem to have all the information with blueprints.

Think about it. What is the depth of the area where the plane crashed? What is the unclassified depth of Subs? Repeat that to yourself.

Nobody knows exactly where the plane crashed, however, unlike blackboxes, subs don't send homing signals to help others find it..

 

[Nan Yang]

China nuclear modernization is only reacting to US nuclear policy.

How U.S. Strategic Policy Is Changing China’s Nuclear Plans



Quote:

During 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; it signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty with Russia (also known as the Moscow Treaty); it finalized a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR); and it pushed ahead with plans for a national missile defense, culminating in President George W. Bush’s December announcement that the United States would deploy a rudimentary system in 2004.

Each of these decisions signaled that the Bush administration is rethinking the role of nuclear weapons in its broader strategic policies. Experts on U.S.-China relations have argued that, by doing so, the Bush administration is encouraging China to rethink its own approach to nuclear weapons, potentially diminishing its interest in international agreements and perhaps even sparking an arms race.1 With only two dozen nuclear-armed ICBMs capable of hitting the United States and an official policy of not using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, China’s current nuclear posture is considerably weaker than the U.S. posture. But some analysts have speculated that that could change if U.S. policy threatens mainland China or upsets the situation in the Taiwan Strait.

This article is based on more than 60 not-for-attribution interviews with Chinese government officials, arms control experts, military officers, and journalists conducted during the summer of 2002. Their comments clearly indicate that, although the Moscow Treaty and the NPR have not had a significant impact on Chinese thinking about nuclear weapons, U.S. missile defense plans (and the associated withdrawal from the ABM Treaty) could substantially influence China’s ongoing plans to modernize and expand its nuclear forces.

End Quote



So, 12 years later, does United States now feel safer ?

 

[axisofevil]

Can't you comprehend English? Or are you just plain stupid?

1. USA could just find out secretly the Malaysian plane with their super-duper military satellites that you are claiming they have.

2. Then USA could just send one or two standard search & rescue ship around that place just for helping in search.

3. Two days later USA could just claim that their search & rescue ships have found the plane.

What is the problem with that? That plane could have been found, USA could show why they are superior, and everybody would have believed that USA ships have found it.

Now come up with a logical answer or just quit.

Listen up stoopid....you suggested America could use its "super duper military satellites to find the plane"...not me. Why you ask America?


America can do whatever it wants.....Play the game



Finding a plane in 10000 meters of water reveals much to everyone about your capabilities.



Why do you think and assume America wants to show eveyrone its surperior when the world already knows that?



I suggest you quit....you sound like an idiot. You had no idea about SOSUS or ECHELON programs. The fact that these ideas started back in the 1940's is telling. What was India doing back then? Now shut your mouth.

China nuclear modernization is only reacting to US nuclear policy.

How U.S. Strategic Policy Is Changing China’s Nuclear Plans



Quote:

During 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; it signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty with Russia (also known as the Moscow Treaty); it finalized a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR); and it pushed ahead with plans for a national missile defense, culminating in President George W. Bush’s December announcement that the United States would deploy a rudimentary system in 2004.

Each of these decisions signaled that the Bush administration is rethinking the role of nuclear weapons in its broader strategic policies. Experts on U.S.-China relations have argued that, by doing so, the Bush administration is encouraging China to rethink its own approach to nuclear weapons, potentially diminishing its interest in international agreements and perhaps even sparking an arms race.1 With only two dozen nuclear-armed ICBMs capable of hitting the United States and an official policy of not using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, China’s current nuclear posture is considerably weaker than the U.S. posture. But some analysts have speculated that that could change if U.S. policy threatens mainland China or upsets the situation in the Taiwan Strait.

This article is based on more than 60 not-for-attribution interviews with Chinese government officials, arms control experts, military officers, and journalists conducted during the summer of 2002. Their comments clearly indicate that, although the Moscow Treaty and the NPR have not had a significant impact on Chinese thinking about nuclear weapons, U.S. missile defense plans (and the associated withdrawal from the ABM Treaty) could substantially influence China’s ongoing plans to modernize and expand its nuclear forces.

End Quote



So, 12 years later, does United States now feel safer ?

So China performs ASAT tests and you think America is going to stay still?