Between the 26th of July and 1st of August, the UK-led Carrier Strike Group sailed north through the South China Sea. Details of what transpired during that week are limited but here we assess what is in the public domain.
The passage of RN warships through the SCS has been the source of controversy since the UK government announced the intention to send HMS Queen Elizabeth to the region as far back as 2017. The deployment was very much perceived as sending a message to China that the UK is committed to upholding international law in the face of illegal claims to territorial waters by China (and other nations). In particular, Freedom of Navigation Operations, (FONOPs) sailing within the 12 mile limit of islands, rocks and reefs claimed by China was considered a possibility and a potentially provocative option. (UNCLOS, international rules, which have been ratified by the UK and China allow the right of innocent passage through such waters and any artificially created features do not create a territorial sea.)
Not a single official photo of the CGS was published between 27th July and 1st August and until now there has been limited official comment from both the Chinese or British governments. The UK MoD told Navy Lookout today that the Carrier Strike Group “took the most direct route through international waters to conduct exercises with allies and partners in the Philippine Sea”. This and the time taken to travel from Singapore to the Luzon Strait, implies that no specific FONOPs in the disputed Spratly or Paracel islands were undertaken. This was corroborated by the Chinese Foreign Ministry which has said the “British warships didn’t enter within 12 nautical miles of Chinese islands in the South China Sea”.
As expected, there were evidently some efforts to shadow and monitor the group, but when asked for details, the MoD would only say that “all interactions with Chinese vessels were safe and professional”. They added that “wherever the Royal Navy operate, they do so in full compliance with international laws and norms, and exercise their rights to freedom of navigation and overflight provided for by UNCLOS”.
What is certain is that both the CSG and Chinese forces will have watched each other closely and attempted to gather electronic intelligence (ELINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT). This age-old game is played by forces worldwide, information is compiled into libraries of electronic and acoustic signatures for future use in classifying potential targets as well as making assessments of capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, both sides try to reduce and constrain electronic emissions so as not to reveal too much to the opposition.
Prior to the CGS entering the SCS, Chinese state media had issued dire warnings that the UK should not carry out any “improper acts” or “tempt fate”. Some hawkish commentators in the US and elsewhere have claimed that the CSG failed and they “chickened out” by skirting the artificial Chinese islands. China’s excessive and illegal claims in the SCS include a ‘ten dash line’ encircling the vast majority of its international waters so any transit by a warship through the central SCS is by definition helping to uphold international law. The CSG will also return home the way it came so further interactions cannot be ruled out.
On 8th August the Daily Express published an unverified article claiming that as they left the South China Sea, ASW frigates HMS Kent and HMS Richmond detected two Chinese Shang class SSNs. Adding that “An Astute-class submarine is understood to have identified a third Shang boat as it patrolled ahead of the task force”. Despite being written with typical clumsy tabloid hyperbole, the piece has a ring of plausibility. China is likely to have sent submarines to attempt to shadow the CSG and the RN’s towed-array equipped frigates and Merlin helicopters are well capable of detecting submarines at considerable range. While Chinese naval forces are increasingly formidable and have a numbers advantage, they are still qualitatively out-matched by RN boats and experience in the underwater domain. The Type 093 Shang class are modern SSNs but the Astute is almost certainly considerably superior in most regards.
Chinese media has claimed that their submarines may have “intentionally revealed themselves after having accomplished their missions, sending a warning to the UK carrier group”. In a unique and rare show of bravado, a previously undetected Chinese boat famously surfaced close to a US Carrier Group in 2006, but it is against all tactical wisdom and the instinct of every submariner to allow themselves to be detected and very unlikely in this case. Chinese ‘expert’ Song Zhongpin further torpedoed the Global Times article’s credibility by adding “UK warships anti-submarine capability is limited”.
The source of the Express article can only be a leak / ‘off the record briefing’ by someone from within the MoD in London as such specific operational details are never made public, especially when concerning submarines. If the MoD wanted to signal the RN’s ASW successes, there are more respected publications that might have been chosen to carry the story with more gravitas. Alternatively, Mr Giannangeli would not be the first journalist to have simply employed an informed imagination to make up a story.
The CSG subsequently entered the Philippine Sea in early August and is currently alongside at the US Naval Facility in Guam after 5 weeks at sea. (With the exception of HMS Richmond, now in Sasebo, Japan), The group will conduct further exercises before dispersing for visits to a variety of Japanese ports in September.
Main image: HNLMS Evertsen accompanies HMS Queen Elizabeth in the South China Sea, 26th July (Photo: US Navy).
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?
When asked today, the MoD would not comment on progress with HMS Diamond being repaired in Taranto, other than to say “her deployment is not over”. If the work is completed in the next week or so she can still make it to the Pacific.
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
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.
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. 🙂
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.”
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html
It appears they are also looking to up their game in the underwater domain as well.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/06/new-mystery-submarine-seen-in-china-what-we-know/
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.
In fantasy video games, you can always press the reset.
“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.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/revealed-chinas-new-super-submarine-dwarfs-typhoon-class/#prettyPhoto
I wonder how this might play out in relation to Taiwan and potential European land grabs by Russia? We live in interesting times!
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/russian-troops-training-with-chinese-equipment-ahead-of-strategic-exercise-with-pla
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’
I’ll get my hat lol.
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!
The USN is building a new class of frigate, the Constellation class, you blundering idiot !!!
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?
You, as always a bum hole.
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.
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.
Yup hence “Hunter Killers”
Detect and destroy enemy SMs and Ships, as they are our primary maritime strike asset.
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.
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
Are you not confusing your sam systems?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38964/the-united-states-smuggled-a-russian-made-pantsir-air-defense-system-out-of-libya-report
S400 is significantly bigger….
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?
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?
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.

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.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-china-bending-rules-south-china-sea
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.
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
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)
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
They were communists and not Labour supporters, perhaps.
Equally, explain why the Soviet Union made a non-aggression pacr with the NAZIs before WW2?
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.
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-
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.
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
https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2019/07/23/chinese-contractors-winning-eu-infrastructure-projects/
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.