http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_...23jun08_nr.html

Vietnamese Officers Embark USS Tortuga to Observe Singapore CARAT Exercises

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38066

who's paying for the drone? ;)

For the past week and even today, I noticed a couple of F-18 Hornets on approach to PLA, wonder are they part of the exercise? USNs? or USMCs? Or pehaps a couple of Aussie Hornets on their routine exercise with the RSAF?

See below. I don't suppose the six hits came from the third gen navy? ;)


NNS080630-04. CARAT Exercise Addresses Small Craft Threats to Naval Vessels

By Lance Cpl. Andrew S. Avitt, USS Tortuga Public Affairs

USS TORTUGA, South China Sea (NNS) -- Marines with 3rd Marines Combat Assault Company (CAC) -- 18 in all -- and 19 Sailors from USS Tortuga (LSD 46) participated in a crew-served weapons exercise, June 27, during the Singapore phase of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) 2008.

The exercise tested the accuracy and patience of the Marines and Sailors, many of whom qualified to use their weapons in the event of a small water craft attack or other hostile situations.

"The goal was to see if we could track something small," said Aviation Electrician's Mate 2nd Class Aren D. Painter. "We have to count small crafts as a high security risk."

The Marines and Sailors fired on a ship-deployed service target -- a tri-marine raft no longer than 15 feet -- pulled at 10-30 knots behind a remote controlled watercraft commonly referred to as a "roboski."

While the Sailors prepped and loaded the roboski with the raft, Platoon Commander Lt. Kyle Johnson briefed the Marines about the target and the challenges they would face hitting it.

"We are going to have a window anywhere from 30 to 40 seconds," Johnson explained. "It will be hard to hit, though. You're better off tracking it than going right for it," he cautioned, explaining that the rounds would take a few seconds to reach the raft.

"We all have a chance to get that target. Let's nail it," Johnson challenged.

The roboski-pulled raft made 10 passes by Tortuga, whose crew responded by firing more than 4,000 rounds from deck-based, crew-served weapons. The Marines added 2,000 more rounds of fire.

The roboski also passed the five other aligned ships in the joint flotilla -- USS Ford (FFG 54), USS Jarrett (FFG 33), USS McCampbell (DDG 85) and two Republic of Singapore Navy ships -- which fired rounds at the target.

After the exercise, while inspecting the target, crew members were surprised that only six direct hits were scored on the pontoons with minor shrapnel damage to the surface of the raft. There were no hits on the flag. :blink: :blink:

Navy personnel have to qualify once a year on crew service weapons. CARAT has provided six gunnery exercises this year.

During CARAT, the gunnery target exercise is scheduled to run once during each phase with host countries.

CARAT is an annual series of bilateral military training exercises between the United States and several Southeast Asian nations designed build relationships and enhance the operational readiness of the participating forces.

For more news from Commander Task Force 73, visit www.navy.mil/local/clwp/.

6,000 rounds of fire and only 6 direct hit!?

I don't think they were using stabilised weapons -- it sounds like the Marines were using their normal ground weapons on tripods. Even with stabilised weapons this is not easy without using airbursting ammunition. Now you know why there is so much attention on this matter nowadays.

Helicopter Crew Trains with Singapore Air Force During CARAT

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38271

The training culminated with Lonewolf 50 conducting several at-sea landings aboard RSS Tenacious, a Republic of Singapore Navy frigate.

Wonder if they were using tracers. Easier to "walk" the tracers to the target. But at 30Knots, it is not easy to track the target.

the photo from US Navy news portal

The 15th annual CARAT Singapore exercise, with the USN and US Coast Guard was kicked off on 8 June 2009 at Changi Naval Base.

According to KLS Review, the RSN will have the opportunity to train with 4 AEIGS destroyers (USS Chung-Hoon, USS Chafee, USS Russell & USS John S. McCain) of the USN's Destroyer Squadron 31. The Singapore evolution of CARAT 2009 will involve 1,500 personnel, 11 ships, 18 aircraft and two submarines (RSS Conqueror and USS City of Corpus Christi) from the three forces. This year's exercise is the first time that inter-submarine maneouvres will be carried out. Seeking to boost interoperability further, submariners from the RSN and the USN will interact with each other in a submarine tracking exercise.

Even before the start of CARAT Singapore, the Formidable-class frigates RSS Formidable (68), RSS Intrepid (69) and RSS Stalwart (72) went out to sea to conduct an encounter exercise with USN ships during their transit to Singapore. The ship maneuvers and tactics were a prelude to the upcoming at-sea period for six days of exercises.

While underway, the RSN’s frigates and tank-landing ships will engage in surface and air gunnery drills and a replenishment-at-sea (RAS). Deck landing qualifications (DLQs) will involve Singapore’s Sikorsky S-70B helicopter, an international variant of the U.S. Navy SH-60B Seahawk, as well as U.S. Seahawks from the USS Chafee and USS Chung-Hoon.

Ashore, the Singapore Armed Forces and U.S. Marines from the 24th Marine Regiment will conduct urban warfare training at the Murai Urban Training Facility, while the RSN will employ the corvette RSS Victory (88) as a maritime security-training platform in conjunction with a Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team (MSST) embarked on USS Harpers Ferry.

Another part of CARAT Singapore will focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, with the tank landing ship RSS Endeavour (210) and Task Group 73.5 taking part in a HADR exercise off Sudong. Endeavour was among the ships responding to the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

In addition to USS Harpers Ferry, USS Chafee and USS Chung-Hoon, the rescue and salvage ship USNS Safeguard (T-ARS 50) will participate in the Singapore phase of CARAT 2009. More than 1,300 US Sailors and Marines will be working afloat and ashore during the course of the exercise.

What an accident, the towed sonar didn't notice until it was knocked?

Isn't there a blind spot directly aft of the towed array? That could allow the Chinese to sneak up on the destroyer. Either way it is either an incredibly aggressive move by the Chinese or a very dumb action or both (like the EP-3 incident)

Ohh, genius. NEver occurred to you that even if they knew the sub was there (and considering the distance the sub was from the array, it's almost a certainty) they couldn't sink it? And that as a 2km array, it is not easily maneuvered even if the sub's position was precisely known?

So you don’t use some commonsense, Do you? You do bring out that the towed sonar is that long but blindly or deliberately ignored the SQR-19 happens to be the AB’s longest range sonar asset?

As such, If the sub had been detected by the towed sonar, it should have been detected far away. Otherwise, if the sub was only detected at torpedo range, it still a failure. (hint provided someone doesn't know how to use commonsense: why the towed sonar need so long?)

So let me elaborate more into you assumption, the towed sonar detected the sub at a far distance, considering the ongoing Carat which happens to be involving ASW exercises. The long range sonar asset would have called in multiple offboard ASW assets to perfectly accomplishing the ASW part of CARAT exercise. Do we hear any news on that? Commonsense.

2nd, if the towed sonar detected the sub far but for whatever dumb reason, it let the sub come in so close, standard ASW tactics involving a sub breaking into inner circle is always beacon on the active hull mounted sonar to have fast update rate of the in close threat. Because any commonsense will tell you that any threat this close is too serious for passive sonar as immediate targeting is needed. Checking the area around and under HVUs for submarines is called 'delousing'. If possible at least one ASW helicopter is always airborne, to target detected contacts as quickly as possible. Let the contact be maintaining at the asshole of the surface ship and let the hull mounted sonar track? What a genius will label the USN ASW doctrine in such a dumb way? The surface ship’s propeller alone will cover any noise from the sub tail on. Who will let ones ass face the underwater threat in so close range?

Normally the AB Aegis ship seldom carries towed sonar, it well could be the PLAN sub took for grant and ignored the AB was carrying routine ASW exercise and bumped into the sonar been towed.

Genius cannot read... :lol: nor think...

This is what I said, to highlight again.

Just what options did the AB have available short of sinking it? Or did genius expect the AB to fire a torp and sink it, causing an international incident just to prove to genius that the AB knew it was there?

38�Ž & YF, I wouldn't make too much out of this accident and it is just an accident (sh!t happens :o ) - China's over zealous submarine crews will just learn from this accident and avoid hitting the towed array of US DDGs in future when they are doing a shadowing exercise, which they do on a regular basis anyway... Remember, this year a US submarine hit a USN LPD and the British and French subs also 'langa' (crash :) ).

Anyway, when the submarine gets pinged, the game is supposed to be up - unless the one of the parties want to get into position for a firing solution.

The point is, it is unlikely the AB had much of a choice in terms of avoiding contact with the Chinese sub, since its maneuverability is limited by the towed sonar. On the other hand, the Americans knew it was a Chinese sub... I wonder how 38Z is going to explain how they knew if the AB has no idea at all the sub was there in the first place. Or maybe the sub called the AB to send it the bill for the damage caused. :rolleyes:

Notice where this incident occurred too? I wonder whether it was within the 200km EEZ of the Philippines.

I'm just glad it did not happen during CARAT Singapore 2009 (or with one of our Formidable class towed fish) and that it occurred earlier... :D

I would not be surprised if it was within the 200km EEZ of the Philippines.

Is the chinese going to pull a stunt to grab the towed sonar ? :)

the funny thing is that this piece of news so far is not reported in the chinese website....

Well, I haven't checked all Chinese media, but would you be surprised if it won't be covered? :P

ususally when they go one up against the americans they will blow their trumpets from shenyang to shenzhen.......

saw this news on the local chinese daily...the experts on the chinese navy mentioned that the AB does not know of the presence of the chinese sub until the collision....

There's a rather long post by Galrahn on Information Dissemination called 'Cat and Mouse in the South China Sea' - it's worth the time to read the whole post, as it deals with a number of issues in some detail. I've quoted a small relevant section of the post below:

CNN who first reported the incident, suggests that the collision should be an accident as it is dangerous for the submarine if the tow cable had gotten wrapped around the submarine's shaft. As a bubblehead noted and I quote: "This is putting it mildly; there's no way around admitting that this could only be seen as a case of really bad submarining. Submarines never, ever want to get near the stern of any ship that might have a towed array deployed for that very reason; it you get that cable wrapped around your only propulsion shaft, especially this far from your homeport, you're pretty much SOL and heading home on your dinky outboard (if Chinese subs even have them)."

IMHO, the US Navy will now have an ultra accurate sonar signature of that particular PLAN submarine for future use - considering how close the towed array was to the submarine before it was hit by the submarine.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command/3628305836/

victory looks.....so small....

It is small. Only 62m :)

Very top heavy too, wonder how it manage to overcome the waves during high sea states

3 or 4 years ago during the navy open house, i remember me, cj and 05 boarded the MCV for a cruise....we asked the captain or the xo??? whether the top mast problem has been solved or not...cannot really recall the answer though but even at felt that there was really a top mast problem even with a calm sea state....but dont know whether that is psychological or what...

I'm so tempted to call this image a chart of progression of our navy. :D

OMG, it seems the commonsense never occurs to the genius. with the passive towed sonar essentially no range resolution, you can sink what? Fire control still done by the active ones. Spreading your legs wide open and showing off your hole doesn’t mean you can shoot anything. simply put: This option is out of u ok, no matter wartime or peacetime international blak blak,

Lol, Junk repeated 2 times doesn’t make it a truth. What if the sub was skipping the DDG, I already gave u the hint, but you the genius can’t read. Never mind, I highlighted again here:

Since someone only got genius quality but no commonsense, I reveal the answer here: the towed sonar need that long array so that the sonar can distance itself from the mothership’s inherent noise, if the sub skipping the surfaceship from front to back, no way the towed sonar can notice, in another word, it’s the only blind spot the towed array has. Considering the SSK no stamina to follow a DDG even tows a sonar, the most likely it adopts wait –n-skip in a position ahead of the DDG.

Sorry, ignorant imbecile, but it is quite possible to get range and even form a track passively. And if the target is known to be near, as is likely the case, then not even a range readout is required for a shot.

Please don't describe your job to us. I don't want the details of what you do for a living, and I'm not sure others here want to either. It may be normal for you, but it isn't for us. :rolleyes:

I have no idea what you are blabbering about. Incoherent croaking does not make for an argument. What are you basing your assumption that it is a SSK on? Besides, what is 'sub skipping the surfaceship'? Toad language beyond me. :lol:

So you think AB’s ASW fire control systems work just in a casual way as you mentioned?

AB I’s ASW fire control system MK116, in passive mode, recommends the ship to maneuver for TMA to improve range estimation. It creates track files using up to 4 bearings to determine the contact’s course and speed. The track files must be in sufficient quality for the CO/TAO can determine that target is within the active sonar range (as predicted by SIMAS). The attack that follows is based on the ACTIVE confirmation of the estimated range.

Now you know if the fire control operator just follows your causal way of shooting. The ASROC or torpedo will just result in a noisy fishing boat or container ship been hit dozens miles away in a busy sea lane. QUITE POSSIBLE


for the rest, I don't think it's worth anything more to reply.

As I mentiuned in my 1st reply to you, if the towed sonar had detected the submarine far away, it should have maneuvered for TMA in oder to get the "possible range" you mentioned. and in such a scenario, the DDG's active sonar would have locked in the sub natually in close range as far as the MK116 FCS's passive mode is concerned. THe fact thatsub appeared at the DDG' 6 betrayed all. the DDG is NOT even in a passive tracking mode, If the passive towed sonar only detected the sub near, wihtout TMA for estimated range, how it knowed the sub is near or far? how the fire control officer will shoot just based on bearing?

Thanks for confirming what I said - that range need not be obtained actively.

Quite stupid, you are. Setting a minimum operating depth (essentially the Stratum method) will eliminate the torp from hitting any surface ship.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3826210.html

Yes, it's time to stop flashing your hole.

Happy what? the range ESTIMATION is obtained indirectly via the ship's maneuver, in a close encounter, if the DDG obtaining the range via your "passive" way, it already been sunken during lengthy maneuver.

Sigh, how to say you, your behavior just more like somebody's junior...

Silly, that process you described is just a standard process, nothing indicates the active emission portion as necessary. And what makes you think the ship could not have already tracked the sub from afar? :rolleyes: Passive range estimation can be quite accurate. And even a range estimate can be used for firing a shot. Or how do you think the Ohio class fires their Mk48s without using active emissions for ranging? I'd love to see how you explain that. :lol:

What, you expose your job tool to everybody, now you feeling embarassed? :rolleyes:

pics from the exercise

CARAT 2009