It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese sub surprises 7th fleet, within range of sinking the Kitty Hawk.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

The US Navy's ASW capability is just fine.


I respect your opinion on this forum, and pretty much always will on naval topics on this forum, but I disagree with your assessment of US ASW.

In my opinion the US is in a reconstitution phase of not only equipment, but tactics for ASW, and is currently at its lowest point since the cold war.

Here is how I see it.

The US Navy retired the Spruance class early. It was without question the best ASW surface platform in the Navy when it retired with no replacement. To add insult to injury, the US Navy followed that move by retiring the S-3s early without a replacement, not to mention removing the tails off its FFGs, not putting tails on the Flight IIA DDGs for budget reasons, and letting the P-3 fleet age without a replacement in production while changing the mission of the P-3 to ELINT, SIGINT, and adding ground warfare capability.

Additionally the USN started the Virginia class with a slow production, which will inevitably hurt the SSN fleet by reducing its overall numbers, and removing long term capabilities from the Virginia that were critical during the cold war,like opertions in polar conditions wasn't very smart either.

Lets not forget the Sierra and Romeo's are just coming online in 2006, so the current helo fleet is aged, and will take several years to reconstitute the fleet with the new equipment.

Lets face it, the ASW capability of the US Navy is in its lowest point since the cold war, but the point is, this is one of the few points in history the Navy can afford to be down. With China as the only potential contender, it helps that they themselves are in a rebuilding stage.

As you know, being prepared isn't about where you are at a particular moment, it is about where you are when the right moment arrives. I have faith the LCS concept for ASW will pay off, I also believe the Virginias and P-8s will be coming online in sufficient numbers to matter when they are needed, but not having them available today hurts the US Navy, today.

I think to believe the US Navy ASW capability is just fine today would be inaccurate, because it couldn't possibily be considering virtually every major ASW system designed for underwater warfare since the cold war ended is either in a development phase or in the beginning stages of production. While all of these systems will begin full scale production over the next 4-8 years, it will be another 10 years (roughly 2015) before the US Navy is where it needs to be, and even that statement is based on the assumption all these new systems work as effectively advertised and aren't further delayed.

After all, if the Navy plan pays off, the way USW is done may be completely different than it is today, but it could potentially nuetralize the AIP threat just as potential competitors are fielding AIP systems in sufficient numbers to be of major concern.




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Oh and what interpretation is that ?


"could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen"

Use Dictionary.com


LOL, the US NAvy never shot down any soviet aircraft or sunk any Soviet Naval vessels even though they were detected within attack range many times during the Cold War.


Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?


haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1

LOL, the US NAvy never shot down any soviet aircraft or sunk any Soviet Naval vessels even though they were detected within attack range many times during the Cold War.


Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?

Another one where the use of the rules of engament
en.wikipedia.org...


There is an example of the US doing something which happened in the cold war. Depth charges and such


Erm, you often take things out of context. The Gulf was a war zone back then with Iranian and Iraqi fighters attacking ships. They misidentified the Airbus as an F-14 on an attack run, nothing more.
Are you saying that there is a state of war in the Pacific with CHina and that all CHinese vessels approaching US naval ships should be considered hostile and sunk ?

BTW, any links to the US actually depth charging Russian submarines ?

As for the Bear and Badger reconnaissance sorties, NONE were ever shot down by the US Navy. Why ? because they were never in a war zone or a shooting war with the US.
Furthermore, you didn't see the US shoot down the Russian SU-24 and SU-27's Fencers which over flew the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan ( www.worldnetdaily.com... ) . So it can be assumed that unless in a war zone or at war the US, WILL NOT shoot down aircraft or sink submarines.


The same situation exists with the PLAN and US Navy, quite simple.



[edit on 17-11-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.


Erm, it was an accident, there were no weapons fired. The sub wasn't attacked by the US Navy, you do know the difference ?



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.


Erm, it was an accident, there were no weapons fired. The sub wasn't attacked by the US Navy, you do know the difference ?


I know several sailors that were there, and trust me, it was no drill.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I have a family member who used to work on that carrier, he wouldn't be happy if they sank it. If that class can't detect it, the next class underway will detect it.

[edit on 17-11-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.


Erm, it was an accident, there were no weapons fired. The sub wasn't attacked by the US Navy, you do know the difference ?


I know several sailors that were there, and trust me, it was no drill.


What was no drill ? It seems obvious the Victor didn't know where the Kittyhawk was otherwise it wouldn't have been rammed, they have more than enough speed to mnaouver out if the way.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm, you often take things out of context. Are you saying that there is a state of war in the Pacific with CHina and that all CHinese vessels approaching US naval ships should be considered hostile and sunk?


You have now put words in my mouth and created a argument around that. I am saying that if the submarine was detected a lot soner, it would have been engaged before the carrier was in range of its torpedos or even missiles. Tracking would obviously be the first stage, then Pinging the submarine like ignorant_ape suggested. If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk. Like the case of the Iranian airliner. Because it wasn't detected eariler, none of this happened and when it was first spotted was heading away from the carrier so it wasn't engaged



BTW, any links to the US actually depth charging Russian submarines ?



Previously classified Cuban missile crisis documents, released by the National Security Archive of Washington at an October conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of the near tragedy reveal that the world came closer to nuclear war than anyone had previously thought.

The conference also included the account of U.S. naval officer John Peterson, whose submarine was dropping depth charges on the Soviet submarine B-59.

The recently declassified documents reveal that the B-59 and the four other Soviet submarines stationed at the quarantine line were carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes.

The U.S. Navy was unaware these submarines were carrying nuclear weapons, and the depth charges exploded right next to the hull of the subs.

In response to the U.S. attacks, the crew of the Soviet submarine considered using its nuclear weapon, but instead decided to surface.

Link


As for the Bear and Badger reconnaissance sorties, NONE were ever shot down by the US Navy.


Because all of them were escorted by aircraft and never managed to get within 5 kilometers of an important target. These were detected a very long away and had been followed and engaged in the apporite manner. The soviet pilots were daring, but not that daring in a massive bomber




Furthermore, you didn't see the US shoot down the Russian SU-24 and SU-27's Fencers which over flew the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan


They didn't shoot or engage it down because they didn't want to or they couldn't?


Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.

Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.

Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
PLAN marines and US marines








posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?

Another one where the use of the rules of engament
en.wikipedia.org...


There is an example of the US doing something which happened in the cold war. Depth charges and such

Yes I know about the Bear pilots. I know about the US planes that tucked in near their bomb bays just in case they tried to open their doors. Been there done that and got the t-shirt.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk.


It would be sunk, is this current US Navy doctrine ? PLease post a link.


Like the case of the Iranian airliner. Because it wasn't detected eariler, none of this happened and when it was first spotted was heading away from the carrier so it wasn't engaged


The Iranian airliner was actually tracked almost as soon as it took off and was heading toward the US naval ships, in a war zone mind you. Very bif difference from being in a war zone, where your ships have been attacked before and being in the peaceful Pacific Ocean.



BTW, any links to the US actually depth charging Russian submarines ?



Previously classified Cuban missile crisis documents, released by the National Security Archive of Washington at an October conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of the near tragedy reveal that the world came closer to nuclear war than anyone had previously thought.

The conference also included the account of U.S. naval officer John Peterson, whose submarine was dropping depth charges on the Soviet submarine B-59.

The recently declassified documents reveal that the B-59 and the four other Soviet submarines stationed at the quarantine line were carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes.

The U.S. Navy was unaware these submarines were carrying nuclear weapons, and the depth charges exploded right next to the hull of the subs.

In response to the U.S. attacks, the crew of the Soviet submarine considered using its nuclear weapon, but instead decided to surface.

Link



As for the Bear and Badger reconnaissance sorties, NONE were ever shot down by the US Navy.


Because all of them were escorted by aircraft and never managed to get within 5 kilometers of an important target. These were detected a very long away and had been followed and engaged in the apporite manner. The soviet pilots were daring, but not that daring in a massive bomber


Well once again, you make the point about the US Navy destroying threats. The Tu-95's could carry the AS-4 and AS-6 missiles and could be fired from over 300km away, yet they were allowed to approach to within 5km of a carrier. Obviously they weren't viewed as a threat and were not engaged.



Furthermore, you didn't see the US shoot down the Russian SU-24 and SU-27's Fencers which over flew the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan


They didn't shoot or engage it down because they didn't want to or they couldn't?


Just as they didn't want to attack teh Chinese sub. you made the point that any threat to the US Navy would be shot down or sunk. The SU-24's and Su-27's clearly were a potential threat and were spotted before they overflew the carrier, yet they weren't shot down.



Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.

Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.

Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.



The US Carrier was escorted by SAM carrying ships which could have easily shot down the planes. They just weren't a threat, they were hardly going to attack teh carrier, just as the PLAN sub wasn't going to attack the Kittyhawk.

from the same article


Moscow, however, considers the incident much more serious, if not a "victory" of sorts, considering Russian aircrews have not overflown a U.S. carrier in three decades.

www.worldnetdaily.com...


SO the Soviets had overflown varriers before during the height of the Cold War in the 70's and had never had any planes shot down.

[edit on 18-11-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Yes I know about the Bear pilots. I know about the US planes that tucked in near their bomb bays just in case they tried to open their doors. Been there done that and got the t-shirt.


Got any pictures to prove this ? How close were they tucked in ?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
It would be sunk, is this current US Navy doctrine ? PLease post a link.


Thats just a stupid question and wasn't my argument. I could easily ask you if you have links to back up your assertions that they wouldn't have. Please post a link. I think posters like darksided or orangetown would know these things since they have connections or actually served in the USN


Very bif difference from being in a war zone


Out of contrast, the US was in peacetime and the war zone could have included the whole Middle east area because they were all effected. Because they were under peace time conditions in a potentional warzone does not permit them to act any differently or if you suggest otherwises, Please post a link


Obviously they weren't viewed as a threat and were not engaged.


If they weren't viewed as a threat, they never would have been intercepted. Give me a link to suggest they weren't treated as a threat with AS-4/6 and were treated in the same way as a average recon flight by the bear.

Bears with stragic cruise missiles were definately not allowed to practise their bombing runs againest the american coast


The SU-24's and Su-27's clearly were a potential threat and were spotted before they overflew the carrier


And nothing could have been done about it since those carriers had no aircraft able to deploy when they were spotted and after they did three passes over the carrier. When aircraft were deploy only then were they intercepted



The US Carrier was escorted by SAM carrying ships which could have easily shot down the planes.


And can you please give details of these ships, i know its a normally guarded and such, but it was re-fueling. I would like edvidence that there was destroyers on patrol around the carrier

[edit on 18-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
It would be sunk, is this current US Navy doctrine ? PLease post a link.


Thats just a stupid question and wasn't my argument.


You said they would have sunk it, I'm just asking you where your evidence that suggests they would hvae sunk the submarine. Maybe you shouldn't be saying stupid things, your staement not mine.



Out of contrast, the US was in peacetime and the war zone could have included the whole Middle east area because they were all effected. Because they were under peace time conditions in a potentional warzone does not permit them to act any differently or if you suggest otherwises, Please post a link


They weren't under peacetime conditions in the gulf - don't you know any history. The US were escorting ships which were being attacked by antishiping missiles from both Iraq and Iran. A US warship hadf also been hit by an Irqi antishipping missile resulting in exensive loss of life. Now that isn't peacetime.


On April 14 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter crashed with no apparent combat damage, killing the two pilots.

In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologised.

According to the investigation done by Ted Koppel, during the war, U.S. navy used to set decoys inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation.

www.reference.com...



While deployed to the Arabian Gulf, the USS STARK is hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles but only one of them detonates. Both missiles were accidentally fired by an Iraqi F-1 Mirage aircraft, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others. The pilot later claims that he had mistaken the STARK for an Iranian oil tanker.

navysite.de...


Yeah, peacetime my ass, LOL.



Obviously they weren't viewed as a threat and were not engaged.


If they weren't viewed as a threat, they never would have been intercepted. Give me a link to suggest they weren't treated as a threat with AS-4/6 and were treated in the same way as a average recon flight by the bear.

Bears with stragic cruise missiles were definately not allowed to practise their bombing runs againest the american coast.


They did cruise down both East and West coasts of America, sure they were intercepted. But, they were never shot down. You seem to claim that the Americans should have shot them down. Now why would they destroy a Chinese submarine posing the same or less threat than Soviet nuclear capable bombers ?

NOt to mention Soviet aircraft overflew carriers in the 1970's and were never shot down. So your argument is moot.



The SU-24's and Su-27's clearly were a potential threat and were spotted before they overflew the carrier


And nothing could have been done about it since those carriers had no aircraft able to deploy when they were spotted and after they did three passes over the carrier. When aircraft were deploy only then were they intercepted


They could have been shot down by any of the SAM carrying escorts, especially as they were spottd well before they overflew the carrier.




The US Carrier was escorted by SAM carrying ships which could have easily shot down the planes.


And can you please give details of these ships, i know its a normally guarded and such, but it was re-fueling. I would like edvidence that there was destroyers on patrol around the carrier


ERM, someon has already postd the ships in teh Kittyhawk battlge group. I suggest you read the thread


mod edit: corrected missing letter in quote tag

[edit on 18-11-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
lol the old chinawhite vs rouge1 series is backkkk!

man I love it so much; this is classic~!



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You said they would have sunk it,


This is what you get for answering every sentence without looking at the context they were written in

You are taking that statement out of context, I said if it was detected it would have been sunk, which translate into the notion that if the submarine was detected "much" eariler approaching the US carrier it would have been engaged by other methods before it gets within the danger limit of a possible strike.

I did not say that if it was detected it would be automatically sunk but if if was detected and engaged in other methods it would have been sunk. The chinese submarine was detected but wasn't engaged because it was heading in the opposite direction of the carrier.


I would like a link that says the US would allow a submarine or any other craft to approach the carrier and make it within 5miles and not be sunk



They weren't under peacetime conditions in the gulf


Show me the rules of engagement difference between a ship on escort duties and a ship doing a patrol in the pacific


They did cruise down both East and West coasts of America, sure they were intercepted. But, they were never shot down.


Two different cases,

The bears never were a threat when flying on the american coast, they would have been intercepted before they came within the useful range of their missiles and these flights had almost become routine throughout the cold war. Because the rules of engagment was carefully look after by both sides, no one actually did anything.

Now here is another case in which a THREAT was being engaged



The Navy aircraft were operating from the aircraft carrier U.S. S. John F. Kennedy, which was conducting routine operations in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet.

The Libyan aircraft approached the U.S. Navy aircraft in a hostile manner over international waters, and the Navy aircraft, acting in self-defense, fired airto-air missiles, downing both Libyan aircraft.


Rules of engagment worked in here, they were spotted and engaged, when they refused to stop they were shot down. Now imagine a Bear trying to make a simulated cruise missile launch, they would have been shot down in a instant


NOt to mention Soviet aircraft overflew carriers in the 1970's and were never shot down


Unless you come up with the situation they were in when they overflew an american carrier in the 1960's there is no point trying to quote one little line a worldnetdaily article is telling you. I'm sure those Libyan aircraft didn't mind

Now when you find them answer these questions
- Did they fly over a carrier at 1000 feet or 50,000 feet
- Were they detected before they overflew
- And did they retreat before they were intercepted


They could have been shot down by any of the SAM carrying escorts, especially as they were spottd well before they overflew the carrier.


They were claimed to have been spotted a long way away, take time to think when the russian aircraft arrived and when the "immediate" orders of "alert fighters" and how un-threatening the situation was. They might have saw the russians aircraft at altitude, but then they made a dive and was skimming the water which is nearly impossible to detect without look-down radar because radar waves cannot curve.

I would like to see where the AEGIS destroyers were at that momment



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
I know several sailors that were there, and trust me, it was no drill.


Thats the difference between someone looking over internet articles and someone connected with-in the USN



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Got any pictures to prove this ? How close were they tucked in ?


Some of the picture here show them.
link



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
You are taking that statement out of context, I said if it was detected it would have been sunk, which translate into the notion that if the submarine was detected "much" eariler approaching the US carrier it would have been engaged by other methods before it gets within the danger limit of a possible strike.p


Nope nothing out of context, you've just backed u what i said.



I would like a link that says the US would allow a submarine or any other craft to approach the carrier and make it within 5miles and not be sunk


You made the statement you prove it. As a poster in different thread has already said ( an RN man in the gulf ) Iranian aircraft regularly overfly US vessels and are not shot down. You make statements with no backing then challenge other people to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right. So please go ahead.

PS, Thanks for teh pictures JIMC


Show me the rules of engagement difference between a ship on escort duties and a ship doing a patrol in the pacific


I think when you can distinguish between a war zone and a peaceful area, you may be able to work out the difference by yourself. Well....maybe.



The bears never were a threat when flying on the american coast, they would have been intercepted before they came within the useful range of their missiles and these flights had almost become routine throughout the cold war.


Actually they were well withing useful range of their cruise missiles to attack US coastal targets



Now here is another case in which a THREAT was being engaged

The Navy aircraft were operating from the aircraft carrier U.S. S. John F. Kennedy, which was conducting routine operations in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet.

The Libyan aircraft approached the U.S. Navy aircraft in a hostile manner over international waters, and the Navy aircraft, acting in self-defense, fired airto-air missiles, downing both Libyan aircraft.


Rules of engagement worked in here, they were spotted and engaged, when they refused to stop they were shot down. Now imagine a Bear trying to make a simulated cruise missile launch, they would have been shot down in a instant


You either cannot read or purposely left out the most relevant information. The Libyan planes fired on the F-14's first



On the morning of the 19th, two VF-41 Black Aces F-14As, Fast Eagle 102 (CDR "Hank" Kleeman/LT D. Venlet) and Fast Eagle 107 (LT "Music" Muczynski/LTJG "Amos" Anderson), were flying combat air patrol to cover aircraft engaged in a missile exercise. An E-2A Hawkeye gained radar contact with two Fitters which had left Okba Ben Nafi Air Base near Tripoli. The Fitters were heading towards the Tomcats and the lead Fitter fired an AA-2 Atoll short range heat seeking missile at the Tomcats. The Tomcats evaded and were cleared to return fire.
www.answers.com...




Unless you come up with the situation they were in when they overflew an american carrier in the 1960's there is no point trying to quote one little line a worldnetdaily article is telling you. I'm sure those Libyan aircraft didn't mind


I'm sure they did overfly carriers n the 1960's. Why are the 1960's so important to you ?


They could have been shot down by any of the SAM carrying escorts, especially as they were spottd well before they overflew the carrier.



They were claimed to have been spotted a long way away, take time to think when the russian aircraft arrived and when the "immediate" orders of "alert fighters" and how un-threatening the situation was. They might have saw the russians aircraft at altitude, but then they made a dive and was skimming the water which is nearly impossible to detect without look-down radar because radar waves cannot curve.


All conjecture and supposition, you provide some fact to prove your opinion.

As for being able to be detected, they can be spotted above the water easily, out to the radar horizon. ow being that the escort ships are spread out around the carrier, the SU-24's would have been spotted well past this as well.


[edit on 18-11-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You made the statement you prove it.


Dont use my statement i made and consort it

I did not make that statement your talking about. I was refering to the fact that the Submarine wasn't detected earlier and would have been detected if they were engaged at an eariler distance and did not halt. I did not say they would sink the chinese submarine on detection.

You then went on to argue about it and made a point about the US not wanting to shot them down


I think when you can distinguish between a war zone and a peaceful area, you may be able to work out the difference by yourself.


PROOF, Please.

Even in peace time the American ADIZ has acknowledged that a threat will be shot down, what exactly are you looking for?. I can provide statements from NORAD indicating they are prepared to shoot down a threat if that is what your looking for



4 July 1989 A Soviet MiG-23 Flogger, piloted by Colonel Skurigin, took off from an airbase near Kolobzreg on the coast of the Baltic Sea in Poland, on a training flight. After take-off the pilot realized he was losing engine power. The pilot ejected and landed safely by parachute. The engine then regained power and the aircraft flew away to the West, guided by the autopilot. The fighter left the airspace of the East Germany and entered West German airspace where it was intercepted by a pair of USAF F-15s. The F-15s were denied permission to fire on the MiG and had to let it fly away. Eventually, after flying 900 km, the MiG-23 ran out of fuel and crashed into a house near Kortrijk, Belgium. An 18-year old man in the house was killed.


US fighters are prepared to shoot down threats coming their way


Actually they were well withing useful range of their cruise missiles to attack US coastal targets


Can you please provide some proof of them being with their useful range or had actually activated their cruise missiles. Its one thing when a Bear was making a pass on the american coast and was intercepted and then another is when they were making a bombing run on an american city. They would have been put on radar lock once entering the american ADIZ.

If they were considered a threat, they would have been shot down when it became a threat, the soviets never put their pilots so close to the american coast because of this reason



You either cannot read or purposely left out the most relevant information. The Libyan planes fired on the F-14's first


My flight occured with MiG-23s not Su-17/22s. Dont be to quick and make accusations about my reading capabilities or try and call me a liar

Libyan planes downed - Department of Defense statement, Frank C. Carlucci address - transcript

A bottom in that link before indicated my event which describes nothing about missiles being fired nor was that theoffical US line


The Floggers accelerated and continued to approach. At six miles (11 km) range the Tomcats split and the Floggers followed the wingman while the lead Tomcat circled to get a tail angle on them. The wingman engaged with a Sparrow and downed one of the Libyan aircraft. One of the US pilots broadcast "Good kill! Good kill!" The lead Tomcat closed on the final Flogger and at 1.5 miles (2.8 km) fired a Sidewinder, which again hit its target. One crewman broadcast "Good kill!" and "Let's get out of here." The Libyan pilots were seen to successfully eject and parachute into the sea, but the Libyan Air Force was unable to recover them. The Tomcats then proceeded north to return to the



I'm sure they did overfly carriers n the 1960's. Why are the 1960's so important to you ?


Your sure, or you have proof?

Dates and quoting people right as both equally important. Close enough is not good enough. It was not the 1970's which implied all the way to 1976 theres a big difference in the incencity of the cold war during those periods which you made light of previously


As for being able to be detected, they can be spotted above the water easily, out to the radar horizon. ow being that the escort ships are spread out around the carrier, the SU-24's would have been spotted well past this as well.


Easily?. Have you operated a radar system on board a ship, or have you ever tried to detect a low flying aircraft. When the aircraft was most likey detected was when the "immediate" orders of "alert fighters". If they were tracked so far away, they wouldn't have panicked and the aircraft carrier wasn't put on alert.

I would like to note, that this un-threatening event put the carrier on a higher alert status because it was expected?. This was the same person who said that the russian fighters had a "suitable distance away" from the Kitty Hawk when this information was first released


What was this about iranian aircraft over flying the US carrier?. Planes do, do that but they are intercepted and given a code to input into their transponders like the ADIZ principles




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join