Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The CSG has been performing well so far on this tour. Is it a coincidence that HNLMS Evertsen is sailing so close to the carrier on so many official photos? What kind of duties does the dutch destroyer do within the CSG?

Any words yet on HMS Diamond? Will she be able to meet up with the CSG on the return journey?


Seems to be taking a long time to change out an engine? I thought this could be done in three days?


The USN tried a hybrid turbine- electric system for the Burkes , but it too was unsuccessful and was only installed in 1 ship USS Truxtun

Paul T

Maybe with the PIP work ongoing there simply wasn’t a Spare WR21 available at short notice – yes PIP involves DG’s not GT’s but could there be some Swapping out of the GT’s at the same time ?.


Maybe they are going for the cheaper but takes longer approach of just swapping out the damaged ‘module’ if the gas turbine section affected.


I am sceptical that the USN didn’t detect that PLAN submarine.

David Steeper6

Where in the article does it discus that ?


“In a unique and rare show of bravado, a previously undetected Chinese boat famously surfaced close to a US Carrier Group in 2006,”


Thanks. 🙂

Nigel Collins

And made a close call in 2016!

“The sub-detection capabilities of the US Navy showed that they didn’t consider the level of advancement of the Chinese submarine fleet. China has always been reclusive about its arsenal, so this came as no surprise. Nevertheless, the US underestimated the level of sophistication achieved by the Chinese subs.”

Nigel Collins

It appears they are also looking to up their game in the underwater domain as well.


Is a folly to under-estimated one’s adversaries.

Like so many on this serious forum calming task force invisibility, a perfect defense shield, one shot one kill, immune to saturated attacks, moving at grease lighting and adversaries’s supersonic/hypersonic anti ship missiles could only hit slow moving buildings.

Before the out break of WW2, Japanese military pilots were considered to be inferior and inherently incapable of flying.

Just wait and see on 7th December 1941 at Pearl harbor and HMS Prince of Wales/HMS Repulse, two capital ships escorted by 4 destroyers in open water South China sea sailing at grease lighting, found and sunk by 88 propeller planes.

Some flying by some inferior and incapable pilots.

Sir Dudley Pound, the First Sea Lord.

Pound: Prime Minister, I have to report to you that the Prince of Wales and the Repulse have both been sunk by the Japanese – we think by aircraft. Tom Phillips is drowned.

Churchill: Are you sure it’s true?

Pound: There is no doubt at all.

Churchill hangs up In all the war, I never received a more direct shock.

In fantasy video games, you can always press the reset.

Last edited 2 years ago by Arjun
Nigel Collins

“Is a folly to under-estimated one’s adversaries”

Especially if they intended to join forces in future conflicts.

A further update on the Chinese Type-100 Class tends to put things in perspective.

I wonder how this might play out in relation to Taiwan and potential European land grabs by Russia? We live in interesting times!

Last edited 2 years ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay

Type 100 is a April fools joke. You must have seen that at the bottom of the article.


Taiwan spends less of its GDP on defence than Britain or Australia and is way behind small Singapore.
So much for ‘Clear and Present Danger’

David Steeper6

I’ll get my hat lol.

Meirion x

It goes to prove that the USN lacks ASW capabilities, especially lacking on the ‘Jack of All Trades’, Arleigh Burke class warships. USN should of built new Perry’s or a new type of frigate, with T23 IP in the 90’s

Using a sub to find another sub, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack!

Last edited 2 years ago by Meirion x
Medalion Y

The USN is building a new class of frigate, the Constellation class, you blundering idiot !!!

Meirion x

The Constellation Class frigates are still Not built yet, so won’t make any difference, until later in this decade. Construction dosn’t start til next year.

So, who is the blundering idiot now then?

Last edited 2 years ago by Meirion x
Medalion Y

You, as always a bum hole.

Meirion x

Speaking of yourself as always!


Burkes have AN-SQR-53-C sonar, AN-SQR-19 TAS, ASROC, Mark 32 STWS, and LAMPS III

Not as quiet as T23, but nothing else is as quiet as T23. Quieter than a T22x though by some margin.

Where this idea that the USN has no ASW capability comes from I don’t know.

Last edited 2 years ago by X

Hilarious or uninformed comment, I’m not sure which. SSNs (US, UK, French) are designed to detect and destroy enemy submarines. That’s their primary task. Shielding the CSG is their secondary task.

dick van dyke

Yup hence “Hunter Killers”


Detect and destroy enemy SMs and Ships, as they are our primary maritime strike asset.

Meirion x

Remember the near collision between a British and a French sub? Neither of them were aware they where near to each other.


That is because they are extremely quiet units, designed to hide in the oceans, they are quieter then contemporary SSNs.
Hunting SSNs is a different ball game, they normally transit to areas of interest, so, are far more likely to be intercepted enroute. However, if a sM doesn’t want to be found, then it can be extremely difficult to detect it.


The have considerable passive sonars available including towed array.
They should definitely be able to pick up another sub within a 100m or so. But not if no one is listening


‘But not if no one is listening’ Really!!! As with your previous sentence, based on conjecture/ opinion.


Its clear as mud. These are massive subs the hull noises alone are significant when you get close enough. Its like all ‘stealth’, all bets are off when you are really close.
If their various passive systems cant pick up another submarine within a 1km then they may as well pack up stay at home.
Im saying the listening sonars definitely work very well , when used properly.


Actually no, it shows that everything is working correctly, WRT noise reduction/quietening measures.
Yes they have large capable passive systems Inc very effective TA systems, but, these SMs are designed to be v quiet especially at patrol speeds. Patrol speeds for these are 3-4kts it’s what helps makes them stealthy, the down side of which is that due to their size (17500ish tonnes) it makes them very sluggish to manoeuvre or respond to sudden speed increases, they don’t have the agility or acceleration of a ‘ferrari’!
The command areas are all manned 24/7 when at sea and dived, with the sound room provide contact tracking and information to the command team, it’s how they function. So they are definitely listening, systems being used as they should be, detection of each other will probably have occured at v short range, the issue will have been a lack of manoeuvrability at slow speed.
There is now much better liaison between NATO and the French when it comes to de-conflicting operational areas for SSBN patrols.


The Chinese submarines are louder than 1970’s soviet Oscar subs. It’s an area they probably are weakest in. Russia won’t share much, if any SSN sub tech with them and its difficult to counterfeit.


Yes. The submarine stuff didnt end up in the post soviet republics and the shipyards in Ukraine didnt build nuclear subs at all.


Feed pumps are a beggar to make quiet. And they have to run constantly. I think we will see a shift in how much Russia gives China in terms of that technology if the West keeps pushing them. The Chinese aren’t very good at copying things. They can produce things that look like other things whether they always function as well as the original is another question. An indicator will be whether Russia gives them access to S500. If the latter functions as well as the ‘brochure’ tells us it will be a game changer.


Just like the S400 was going to be a game changer in Syria? NATO planes flew unopposed and laughed in EW.


What I like about sites like this is the Russians flip between being the greatest threat evah to a cliche clown country depending on what the argument needs at the time.

Syria is a complex situation. Are you saying the Russians should have been pooping off missiles all the time? Because that wouldn’t have helped anybody would it? Or are you one of those who like to frequent sites like this who think war is a video game? And to compare Syria to China defending its coast isn’t really comparing like with like is it? All I see from your comment is that you have read a few Western defence websites.

Meirion x

A S400 was captured in Libya, and handed over to the US earlier this year.


Not that system , a much lower level Pantsir S1 system or SA-22 and those systems came from that operated by UAE, who have a close defence relationship with US.
Parts of S-300 were ‘bought’ from Belarus in 1994

Last edited 2 years ago by Duker
Dave G

that was not a S400

that was a Pantsir S-1 ironically owned by UAE, a US ally.


We have/will have access to Chinese submarine technology: Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh.


We will learn little from export models.

Do you think they export state of the(ir) art boats?

Sophiemarie Kung

Thank you! The Carrier Strike Group “took the most direct route through international waters […] no specific FONOPs in the disputed Spratly or Paracel islands were undertaken”.


What exactly are the Chinese claims and how many dashes are there? (I keep reading about a nine-dash line, here it’s a ten).

My understanding isn’t that China claims the whole of the SCS within the dashes as territorial waters. Rather it claims the 12 nautical miles around all islands (real and artificial) within the dashes as territorial. Is that right? If so does that mean they claim the whole area as an exclusive economic zone?

Joe Porter

My understanding is that uninhabited islands/rocks can be used as a base point for Territorial Waters but not an EEZ; so, the question is whether a rock is Chinese — or British in the case of Rockall.
In any event, a nation is allowed right of innocent free passage through TW.


EEZ too.

The big lump to the left at the top is Rockall’s EEZ. Why do you think the Irish (and others) want it?

Same with the rocks and atolls in the SCS.
comment image


Sorry sir but I think you may be mistaken. The lump is caused by our EEZ from St Kilda stretching 200 miles into the Atlantic. It looks further than elsewhere as where our EEZ meets another nations EEZ, the line is drawn half-way – Hence the oddly shaped thing between the French and Irish EEZ.

It is true that Rockall falls within our EEZ, and true that we claim it, (please excuse my use of Wiki but it’s quick and easy) however “In 1997, the UK Government declared that “The United Kingdom’s fishery limits will need to be redefined based on St Kilda, since Rockall is not a valid base point for such limits under Article 121(3) of the Convention. [UNCLOS]” This is the only example to date of a state voluntarily downgrading an insular feature to “a rock” and thus reducing the area of its claimed maritime zones.”


Yes you are right.


I’m wondering more about the Chinese claims than the rights and wrongs under UNCLOS. I found this interesting article that suggest the Chinese are using archipelagic rules.

Mike Barter

I hope the CSG does transit the South China Sea and within the 12mile limits of the islands the CCP claim.
If the Allies don’t stand up to the CCP they will see this as weakness.
The result will be a conflict within a few years.
CCP “fishing-boats”have already rammed and sunk Philippine boats, leaving the crews to be rescued from shark infested sea by a Vietnamese boat.
The time for being respectful and polite towards the CCP has passed.
If any proof is needed just look at the treaty we made with the CCP over Hong Kong.
It’s in taters, doing business with the CCP if foolish and naive at the moment.
The problem is Conservative governments have a history of appeasement.

Paul Barker

Appeasement . Oh yes I have watched the gathering storm with albert Finney and Garry Oldman version . The reason why chamberlain didn’t want a war was because the company he had shares in BSA British small arms and he didn’t want to rock the money boat as Germany was trading with British companies
Churchill became prime minister not because the Tories wanted him it was because the opposition wouldn’t serve under chamberlain in a coalition government Churchill knew that butler and others did business with the nazis

David Steeper

Labour always get whitewashed on appeasement. Yep they voted against but they also voted against re-armament. Apparently the League of Nations would stop Hitler !


Labour and appeasement?
Clearly you no idea of the political realities of the 1930s.
It was the left wing in Britain who became part of the International Brigade to fight facism in Spain, which had Hitler on the other side.
The Appeasers were a large faction in Conservative party and its allies, including business leaders and the aristocracy. Churchill and his backers were a small group
The 1935 election showed how weak Labour was in the 615 member Commons with the Government 429 and Labour 154, nearly 3 to 1
It was Conservative PM Chamberlain who accepted Hilters assurances at Munich. Even the Poles appeased Hilter with a Treaty Of Friendship and they like the other central European dictatorship Hungary took part in dis-membership of democratic Czechoslovakia
In general its over dramatised, appeasement only lasted a year from Munich to the beginning of the war, and its used inappropriately or wrongly ever since.


Chamberlain knew war was coming and bought more time for re-armament.

I would hardly call a couple of thousand socialists or communists fighting Franco an argument to support Labour not being appeasers. Both sides in that conflict did appalling things to the other. The Spanish Civil War wasn’t some glorious war it was one set of political extremists fighting other political extremists.


Hey soviet destroyer Taskhent was being build in Livorno during Spanich civil war…


Italy , so what


Fighting Hitler and Mussolini well before it became ‘a thing’
Surely you know both Hitler and Mussolini sent considerable forces to fight for Franco. It was definitely seen as anti fascism , not just ‘some extremist’s’. ( hint Franco was even worse than a fascist, more like a Pol Pot – Paul Preston)

Last edited 2 years ago by Duker
David Steeper

Google George Lansbury.


Seems that his short 2 yr leadership before 1935 was ended because of his extreme pacifism. As google shows:
Walter Citrine, the TUC general secretary, commented that Lansbury “thinks the country should be without defence of any kind … it certainly isn’t our policy”
” Ernest Bevin, the Transport and General Workers’ Union leader. Bevin attacked Lansbury for putting his private beliefs before a policy, agreed by all the party’s main institutions, to oppose fascist aggression,’

Anyway for the Tory government the problem was the pro Hitler and Appeasers came from from their own party, newspapers, business and aristocracy.


Explain why Communist linked unions were sabotaging British war production until 1941?


Is that the Westminister parliamentary Labour party?


no brain and farting as usual

David Barry

They were communists and not Labour supporters, perhaps.

Equally, explain why the Soviet Union made a non-aggression pacr with the NAZIs before WW2?

David Barry

You forgot to mention, cough, the Royal Family, cough… The Czechs have never forgiven us to this day for what we did to them.

I think Labour have done some great things for Defence, unlike this current government of Cons who dress up defence cuts as investment.

Leslie Leveson-

It is good to see the C S G 21 sailing to hopefully enhance sales of class ships and the appropiate technologies which they have on board.
Not forgetting to show the Dragon that the combined fleet,would not be in their interest to interfear in any way
Hopefully their passage to their destination will be non confrontational and safe return journey back home-

John Fields

I see we have a reaction from America of the Task Group “chickening out” from entering the South China Sea. What some Americans would like would have been provocation. I have commented several times that our special relationship will only mean body-bags for our armed forces. At last we have a government that says we are an independent country with our own foreign policy, not one dictated to us by another power. We left the EU to be free and independent and trade all over the world. China happens to be in the top three of trading nations, and I do hope that the movements of Task Group 21 will impress upon them that it is trade we seek to create prosperity and not confrontation. We should now ask the Chinese if we can send Liz Truss to set up a trade deal. Today, I feel proud to be British. At last a sensible decision has been made. Our two new carriers are there to show the flag plus British engineering, but also to say we are available for anything.


Good thinking, the last thing we need is a major confrontation. We should send River OPV’s to mooch about in Far East in a low key way until the T31’s are ready. Building friends and contacts is far more valuable.


Why is it that the UK folks seem so concerned about what Americans think… That’s really not independent.

David Barry

Proud to be British? Liz Truss? Same sentence?

You need to get out more


I don’t generally find myself agreeing with the “hawks” as they’re described in this article, but I do here: the RN deliberately chose the least controversial route and I’m disappointed. We either send a strong message to CHina (and by extension the allies we’re looking to make in the region) or we don’t, and we didn’t.

I know that there’s opportunity to do that on the way back, but that may well be less publicised than the way out. I’ve been really happy with CSG21 so far, but this is a disappointment.


I think a better way to get our point across is if we were all to just stop buying their goods, which the majority of is cheap tat anyway!! No sale no income sort of approach.


Exactly. China has not risen through technological or mercantile guile just as you say spending our money. That and internal tensions make me slightly optimistic.


Well, there is that- although somewhat easier said than done unfortunately…
When I have the choice, I generally choose the option that hasn’t been made at the cost of exploitation- but it’s really very difficult to truly do so.


Yes, appreciate that, after all, everyone likes value for money.
I do get this FON approach, but, when all is said and done it’s just words. I don’t think that this will ever deter China from altering it’s course.
A more concerted economic approach will in my view have a greater effect – although like you say, not necessarily easy to achieve.


majority of is cheap tat anyway”
They are building a nuclear power station in UK.


And we import nuclear power stations on a daily basis do we? Think you may find that we are trying to limit that deal!


It wasnt the point. They are all set up to build them. There are major infrastructure projects all over the world being done by Chinese state owned construction companies and financed by Chinese banks. Its not for everyone for obvious reasons, but countries are doing it , even in Europe


They have a lot of passive sonars, including a towed array.
Within a 100m or so, they should be able to pick up another sub. But that won’t work if no one is paying attention.