Active noise cancellation is but one example. Even how fast they turn the sub or the rpm of the propellers effects this acoustic signature.
This has nothing to do with the fact that while
SUPPRESSION is a valid member of the 'masking' category, suppression does not give the enemy a 'false' sonar signature. What you said is nothing more than generalizations that everyone knows.
During peace time, they don't have to run silent. It is far easier to run noisy than run silent.
This is stupid. If you build a boat than can be more silent than anyone can detect, why would you want to run 'noisy' in the first place? Just run silent so no one will know where you are. This is why I doubt what you said about yourself.
Like I said, everything on a modern sub is damped and runs like silk for a reason. As a Chinese member, I just don't buy the Wired magazine analysis that Chinese subs have gotten noisier and easier to track in the last 10 years. It doesn't even make common sense given how much China has progressed technologically in the last ten years.
Did the Wired article really said that? Let us take a look at the relevant passages...
China's Noisy Subs Get Busier -- And Easier to Track | Danger Room | Wired.com
Chinas Noisy Subs Get Busier And Easier to Track
The article's title said nothing about 'noisier', just 'busier'.
and, the roughly 60 submarines in the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) fleet are spending more and more time on combat-ready patrols signaling Chinas increasing naval competence and growing seriousness about influencing the western Pacific Ocean.
This has nothing about China's subs 'getting noisier', only that they have been spending more time at sea.
Wired said:
On the other hand, the flurry of undersea activity gives American forces more opportunities to tail and examine Chinese subs. And U.S. analysts discovered a silver lining in the gathering strategic storm clouds. Chinese submarines are a hell of a lot noisier than anyone expected. The sound you hear is the Pacific balance of power tipping in Washingtons favor.
This has nothing about China's subs 'getting noisier', only that now that there are more of them at sea, analysis found that they are noisier than expected. There is a difference between expectation versus known.
Wired said:
As recently as 2007, Chinas diesel-powered subs and a handful of nuclear-propelled models managed just a few patrols per year, combined. Two years before that, none of Beijings undersea boats went on patrol. For years, the majority of PLAN submarines remained tied up at naval bases, sidelined by mechanical problems and a shortage of adequately trained crews.
As long as the PLANs submarines were idle, the U.S. Navys spy planes, surveillance ships and snooping subs had few opportunities to assess Chinas undersea capabilities and, most importantly, how much noise the Chinese generate while submerged and moving. Navies can use passive sonars to track submarines by the sounds they make. The louder a vessel, the easier it is to detect. And destroy.
What this mean is that the lack of China's subs
AT SEA mean the lack of knowledge about how loud or silent the Chinese subs are. The last highlighted statement is a generalization, as in 'a vessel', a generic, not a specific, as in 'a Chinese sub'.
Wired said:
With little information to go on, American intelligence officials had to guess. In cases like that, you guess conservatively,
Right...So to guess conservatively mean you give the benefit of the doubt, as in expecting China's subs to be 'silent' enough to make it difficult to detect, but then because of an upsurge in PLAN sub activities, US subs found out that PLAN subs are not as quiet as what was 'conservatively' guessed.
Wired said:
Now Chinese subs are patrolling more frequently. Within the last year or two the Chinese have begun to deploy diesel boats more frequently into places like the Philippine Sea, the analyst reveals. More and better data is flowing in from U.S. forces. With that data, the Navy conducted a fresh assessment of PLAN submarines. The unnamed analyst attended a classified briefing based on the assessment.
Right...So once again, we are not saying that Chinese subs have been getting 'noisier' from a known standard, only that they are 'noisier' than what we originally guessed. More data support those new estimations.
Wired said:
But the Navys just discovered that Chinas homemade subs are even louder than 20-year-old Russian boats.
The known standard here is not Chinese but Russian. So based upon analysis of
INCREASED Chinese sub activities, we found that Chinese subs are inferior to Russian subs.
Wired said:
The U.S. Navy had a comfortable technological lead over the PLAN even before the increased Chinese sub activity fueled the recent intelligence coup. Now that lead has gotten even wider. And noisier.
The last highlighted words are more rhetorical than it is technical. The 'noisier' does not mean intensity
PER unit, as in per Chinese sub, but rather of overall volume, as in more Chinese sub activities that contributed more noise into the seas.
Your comment about being Chinese mean you cannot believe anything that is critical of China, no matter how much of that criticism is based upon science, reinforced the belief that the Chinese boys here are a bunch of racists.
Let me ask you a question Gambit and I'm sure you'll give me an honest answer because you are an honorable person I assume. If Chinese FHM / Maxim wrote an article saying Virginia-Class is noisier and easier to track than Los Angeles-Class, would you say bullsh!t ?? How come these common sense standards don't apply in this case ??
If I say BS, it will be because US subs have been around the world much more than Chinese subs. Heck, probably much more than the entire PLAN itself.
That is the problem for your argument, in order for that hypothetical Chinese article to have any credibility, the PLAN must be active in 'blue water' naval experience, because that is where US subs usually are, and that the PLAN must have a reasonably accurate and voluminous library of US sub signatures, which we know is absurd because the PLAN is not a 'blue water' navy. More like a US Coast Guard equivalent. You speak of common sense, more like you do not have any in this debate.
The only thing I see spinning here is your credibility regarding your claim to have worked in sonar for a US defense contractor. If you cannot read an article intended for the laymen and understand what it mean, why should we take you at your word that you actually worked in the field relevant to the article? Your fellow Chinese conscript rejects will swallow anything you say. We expect no less from compatriot racists. But the rest of us know better...
