What's new

US Navy Issues Warnings on Russia, China’s Submarine Fleets

Luca1

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
-3
Country
United States
Location
United States
The Navy’s top Atlantic Submarine Force commander said Thursday that Russia and China’s ballistic missile submarine development will impact how the U.S deploys its fleet.
Navy Vice Adm. Michael Connor said global threats today are far more numerous and dispersed compared to the Cold War when the U.S. focused solely on Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has treated Russia more like a partner.

However, those goodwill feelings have changed since Russia has shown aggression in its recent conflict with Ukraine and instituted some tactics the U.S. hasn’t seen since the Cold War. Considering Russia’s significant nuclear arsenal, it has drawn the attention of the Navy’s nuclear submarine leaders.
“The Soviet Union devolved into Russia but they kept their nuclear capabilities. They are now re-growing those capabilities and others. As they re-grow, we find that modern Russia appears to have some aspirations both territory-wise and influence-wise that are reminiscent of the way they behaved when we had the Soviet Union,” Connor said.
Last week, Russia broadcast its intent to upgrade its submarine fleet when Russian officials released photos of two Akula II-class nuclear submarines being ferried to a shipyard to receive modernization upgrades.
Along with Russia, the U.S. Navy has taken a closer look at China’s submarine fleet warning that its advancement means the Chinese have a global strike capability, Connor said.
“The world has become multi-polar and we have competition for global influence and power from a rising China -- which is also very much on our mind. The Chinese have had ballistic missile submarines in some form for a while. Their pace has accelerated and they have several nuclear ballistic missile submarines and are continuing to build more,” Connor said.
In February, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued an assessment on the Chinese navy as part of testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review. ONI leaders found that China’s navy has evolved from a littoral force to one that is capable of meeting a wide range of missions to include being "increasingly capable of striking targets hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland."
In particular, ONI raised concerns about China’s fast-growing submarine force, to include the Jin-class ballistic nuclear submarines, which will likely commence deterrent patrols in 2014, according to the report. The expected operational deployment of the Jin SSBN "would mark China’s first credible at-sea-second-strike nuclear capability," the report states.
The submarine would fire the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, which has a range of 4,000 nautical miles and would "enable the Jin to strike Hawaii, Alaska and possibly western portions of CONUS [continental United States] from East Asian waters," ONI assessed.
The report says the Chinese currently have five nuclear attack submarines, four nuclear ballistic missile submarines and 53 diesel attack submarines.
Overall, China's fleet of submarines has quickly increased in offensive weapons technology over the last 10 years. A decade ago, only a few Chinese submarines could fire modern anti-ship cruise missiles. Now, more than half of the conventional attack submarines are configured to fire anti-ship cruise missiles, or ASCMs, the report states.
"The type-095 guided missile attack submarine, which China will likely construct over the next decade, may be equipped with a land-attack capability," the assessment explains. This could enable Chinese submarines with an enhanced ability to strike U.S. bases throughout the region, the report adds.
Overall, Russia and China are firmly committed to have an undersea nuclear deterrent capability with a strong naval component, Connor added.
“We want to resolve minor conflict before they become major conflicts,” he explained.
Connor made his remarks about Russian and China while commemorating the 4,000th strategic deterrence ballistic missile submarine patrol, explaining that undersea nuclear deterrence had its origins in the 1960s. Back then, the U.S needed 41 submarines.
The U.S. Navy’s fleet has since shrunk to 14 nuclear armed submarines based in Bangor, Washington, or Kings Bay, Georgia. The U.S. Navy plans to begin construction of a new-generation of Ohio-class, nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines by 2021 called the Ohio Replacement program, Connor added

US Navy Issues Warnings on Russia, China’s Submarine Fleets | Fox News
 
It is such a joke the US issue warning when they go around trying to contain us and Russia.
 
How is it a 'joke' ? A rising PLA would affect how/what we do to contain China and Russia. It is just common sense.
We are your friend, why do you want to contain us?
 
How is it a 'joke' ? A rising PLA would affect how/what we do to contain China and Russia. It is just common sense.
and the other common sense is that the U.S is bit**ing everywhere, yet not allowing others to do the same
 
By trading with India and help India build Manufacturing sector like they helped China in 1960s. By that India will provide cheap goods which USA buys from China now.

US helped China build manfacturing sector in the 60s? Son, you need go back to school. Trolling can never substitute real education.

You know trade is a two-way thing, right? China also imports fra US.
 
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 ?
 
By trading with India and help India build Manufacturing sector like they helped China in 1960s. By that India will provide cheap goods which USA buys from China now.

Then they would be creating another problem for themselves. "How do we contain India?".

I think America have learnt a good enough lesson not to prop up another country that is big enough to compete with themselves. Having China and Russia is bad enough for them as it is. The last thing they want is to make India as big as China and seeing the possibility of India, China and Russia standing together.
 
How do you contain your biggest trade partner?
Militarily speaking, of course we can. Trade is a two-way street. Military expansion is one-way.

No country is going to passively agree to another country's military expansion. Note I said 'passively agree'. You can at least lodge a public protest with my expansion if you cannot do anything else. Mutually beneficial agreements/treaties, like NATO for example, are for a different discussion, where the US takes the lead in this military-political alliance.

On the other hand, trade demands permission for access and expansion. I cannot force trade upon you, especially if I do not have anything you want. I can advertise as loud and as often as I want but if you are not interested, there is nothing I can do to force you to buy/trade with me.

We, meaning the US and other Asian partners, can certainly limit China's military expansion while conducting financially profitable deals at the same time.
 
US helped China build manfacturing sector in the 60s? Son, you need go back to school. Trolling can never substitute real education.

You know trade is a two-way thing, right? China also imports fra US.
They started cosying up to China in 60s eventually they got the infrastructure investments starting from that point.
 
Then they would be creating another problem for themselves. "How do we contain India?".

I think America have learnt a good enough lesson not to prop up another country that is big enough to compete with themselves. Having China and Russia is bad enough for them as it is. The last thing they want is to make India as big as China and seeing the possibility of India, China and Russia standing together.
Unlike China India in its 7000 year history has never invaded nor Annexed any nation All our influence was by trade and culture.See Buddhism we never invaded any nation yet we had a presence all over Asia.USA can rest assure India is not expansionist nor warmongers like China is.
 
Last edited:
Militarily speaking, of course we can. Trade is a two-way street. Military expansion is one-way.

No country is going to passively agree to another country's military expansion. Note I said 'passively agree'. You can at least lodge a public protest with my expansion if you cannot do anything else. Mutually beneficial agreements/treaties, like NATO for example, are for a different discussion, where the US takes the lead in this military-political alliance.

On the other hand, trade demands permission for access and expansion. I cannot force trade upon you, especially if I do not have anything you want. I can advertise as loud and as often as I want but if you are not interested, there is nothing I can do to force you to buy/trade with me.

We, meaning the US and other Asian partners, can certainly limit China's military expansion while conducting financially profitable deals at the same time.
Does the US have any plans to stop China from building weapons? More and more advance ones? Short of that I can't see how this containment works.

Economically we are actually far more involved in the region than when the pivot started, so that's off the table.

militarily, I fail to see how having bases would limit China, seeing as how we wouldn't have had access to those bases anyways and we are building our own islands. Currently Chinese fishermen already refuel and resupply at some of those islands.

So the only thing that I can think of is somehow the US limits China in the building of weapons, but you are already sanctioning us on weapons, and I don't know how much more you can do here.

What is your view, how will the US limit China? Militarily?
 

Back
Top Bottom