CrimsonPhantom
CUSA Curator
Posts: 62,755
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 3191
I Root For: NM State
Location: |
RE: China’s Newest Nuclear Submarine... Sank
From a year ago:
China Submarine 'Sinking': Why Beijing's Denials 'Mean Little'
Quote:An unconfirmed report emerged this week of a deadly maritime disaster in the Yellow Sea, off China's coastline, in which a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy submarine was allegedly fatally snared in an anti-submarine net intended for enemy submersibles.
The Daily Mail, which reported the incident, cited classified British intelligence documents as the basis of its article. Amid fierce speculation, Chinese officials denied such an incident took place, and nations that might have information to the contrary—for example Taiwan, the U.S., the U.K. and Japan—have said nothing.
Regardless, the alleged loss of a Chinese submarine and its 55 sailors has prompted renewed debate as to the capabilities of Beijing's navy, which is at the heart of the Chinese Communist Party's generational plan to assert control over its neighborhood and displace the U.S. as the regional military hegemon.
Experts who spoke to Newsweek said denials from the CCP mean little, given the party's secrecy and the sensitivity surrounding its maritime operations. If the report is eventually substantiated, those who spoke with Newsweek said, Beijing will face serious questions, though they stressed there is little immediate hope of confirmation.
'A Brutal System'
The Daily Mail report alleged that Chinese PLA Navy nuclear submarine 093-417 was lost after becoming snared in "a chain and anchor obstacle used by the Chinese Navy to trap U.S. and allied submarines." The 55 sailors—among them 22 officers, including captain Colonel Xue Yong-Peng—reportedly died from "hypoxia due to a system fault on the submarine."
The incident, the Daily Mail said, occurred in the Yellow Sea, somewhere off the coast of China's northeastern Shandong province. The Pentagon, asked by Newsweek to confirm or refute the report, declined to comment.
Sam Tangredi, the director of the U.S. Naval War College's Institute for Future Warfare Studies, told Newsweek: "I don't know if the incident occurred. The Chinese Communist Party and People's Liberation Army Navy are not willing to admit mistakes."
"However, Taiwan authorities have stated that they have no evidence that the incident did occur, and they would not have an incentive to hide it."
Tangredi noted that the Russian Kursk submarine disaster of 2000, during which President Vladimir Putin refused offers of international rescue assistance, was the kind of pointed moment of weakness Putin has since been careful to avoid.
"It is presumed that Russia did not want anyone to have access to the submarine lest they get classified information," Tangredi said of the Kursk disaster. "My belief is that the CCP would be even worse, even more secretive even if it would cost sailors' lives."
"Admitting the accident—if it occurred—would have been an embarrassment within their CCP hierarchy, and for both propaganda and counterintelligence purposes they certainly would not ask for assistance from U.S or Japan. How could they portray U.S. or Japan as potential military opponents if they helped rescue Chinese sailors?"
"Theirs is a brutal system as far as accidents are concerned; all are afraid to accept responsibility."
John Blaxland, a professor of international security and intelligence studies at the Australian National University, stressed to Newsweek that the reports "remain inconclusive." However, he added: "Chinese denials mean little unless they are substantiated."
"They will be reluctant to do that if the reports are true, and the longer they take to do that the stronger the circumstantial evidence suggests the initial reports are correct."
"Without knowing more details, it is difficult to ascertain what else this might say about the state of PLA Navy preparedness, efficiency, effectiveness and modernization," Blaxland said.
"On balance, though, it is hard not to conclude that, if substantiated, this is disastrous not just for the PLA Navy but the Chinese military's highly choreographed image of itself as being a modern, capable, intimidating and robust standard-bearer for the China that no longer 'hides its strengths and bides its time'.
"If substantiated, the repercussions will be felt far and wide for a long time. They will no doubt give the Taiwanese some comfort too, knowing the events will give cause for pause. Recent Chinese assertiveness can be expected to undergo review as well."
China's Naval Ambitions
Beijing has already constructed the world's largest navy, with more than 340 ships. Still, numbers alone will not make it the most potent. But the success of the PLA Navy's transition from a "green water" force to a "blue water" force—a navy with the capability to routinely operate far from its own shores—remains uncertain.
With the CCP's immediate attention on Taiwan and the South China Sea, the burgeoning PLA Navy could prove sufficient in securing China's immediate surrounding waters. But a rapidly growing navy can also create an experience gap.
"Submarine operations are inherently dangerous," Tangredi explained. "The U.S. Navy, U.K., and allies have learned to minimize the dangers over decades of operations. The PLA Navy does not have that long experience."
China's hunger to expand its navy, Tangredi added, may have led to some risky decisions. "They even build ships that are of a class inappropriate to their current strategy just because the U.S. has them," he said. "It is possible that they cut corners on safety in order to get all the new ships to sea. I don't know if that was the case in this purported incident. But it is a possible factor."
Submarine operations are particularly dangerous, Blaxland said. "We should not be surprised" if the Daily Mail report proves accurate, he said. "There is ample precedent for this kind of disaster to happen both in wartime and peacetime. Submarines suffer catastrophe due to a variety of causes."
The South China Sea and Taiwan Strait are becoming increasingly tense as Beijing seeks to assert its territorial claims and democratic rivals—whether Western or East Asian—seek to contain China's growing military power.
The Daily Mail reported that the chain and anchor obstacle responsible for the alleged submarine disaster was intended to snare foreign vessels. Blaxland said sub-surface defenses at strategic locations are not unusual.
"Eighty-one years ago, in Sydney Harbour in 1942, Imperial Japanese Navy submarines got caught in harbor nets, so conceptually, the idea of netting set out as a snare for marauding submarines is not far-fetched," he explained.
"Indeed, all sorts of innovative traps are being designed and pre-positioned, particularly in confined waterways and frequently traversed spots, as the prospect of conflict becomes more feasible and likely, apparently imminent, even."
But the actual location of any such device matters, Tangredi said, and might offer some hints as to the report's veracity.
"I really don't know what the 'traps,' would be," he explained. "Perhaps they were nets protecting naval ports. Otherwise, operational traps in open ocean in peacetime would be practically an act of war."
"Modern naval mines are designed not to go off in peacetime and 'dangerous traps' in international waters would be considered an act of war and certainly a violation of international laws."
"The PRC claims the international waters of the South China Sea is their territory, has built artificial islands and [its navy] frequently rams Philippine and Vietnamese vessels if they think they are interfering. But I really can't conceive of them putting 'traps' that could damage, in peacetime, the ships and submarines of a military power that could actually challenge them."
"It is possible for exclusively naval ports to be blocked off by anti-submarine nets," Tangredi added. "But becoming entangled in them would not necessarily result in such a catastrophe, unless the pressure hull was somehow penetrated...If the incident involved a net in internal waters, it would seem that a rescue would be likely."
Tangredi also cast doubt on the Daily Mail assertion that it was a nuclear submarine lost. "Nuclear powered submarines are designed for the open ocean," he said. "Operating in the Yellow or South China Seas means potentially operating in shallow waters."
"Given that it was reported that the submarine's crew was 55 sailors, it was likely that—if it occurred—it would have been a diesel-electric submarine designed to operate in shallower waters." A nuclear vessel, Tangredi added, would have had a greater survival time than an electric submarine, which relies on finite battery power.
|
|
