It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:53 PM
I don't like the idea of anyone gettng within 20 miles, much less 5 miles, of our fleets undetected. I am willing to spend more tax dollars on boosting our military and increasing R&D spending to insure that encounters like this are illiminated.

Edit for an addition here..

As far as the USA whining about how China won't let them into their military bases nor to watch them perform military war games, give me a break. I wouldn't let the USA in either. Why give away any information. Why is the USA letting China watch war games and visit military installations? Ahh is it that the USA already knows that China already has all of the info on a lot of their technology and now they are hoping they will just share back. The USA needs to stay a little more secretive with its military technology.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by infinite8]

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by chinawhite
I'm saying you made fake quotes, use two accounts to complement each other and were in the process of faking U2U to people.

Now what on earth are you talking about ? Please enlighten all of us. Seems someone is getting paranoid.

You wonder why Iskander doesn't respond to you?. Your on his ignore list as well as a lot of other people

LOL right, ok you seem to know so much, who are all these other people ? COme on pluhease tell me.

How is this a child statement
"Rogue1, im not even trying to make you look bad in front of these people, its your own actions that are making you get warnings"

Another reason why you should read the WHOLE post instead of nit-picking at my wording

LOL, how is it a childish statement - only a child wouldn't understand. Quite simply it is very obvious to all who read your last few posts that you are in fact trying to mkae me look bad and continue to do so. Stating the opposite is your feeble attempt to vindicate your actiosn with the other members. but they couldn't care less about you oir your posts, which makes it even funnier.

The only time somone compliments you is because you've found a decent pic or article, they never compliment you on your knowlege or thoughts on any subject - LOL.

A child also needs to be told how to attack, im sure you understand with all the warnings you get for "Time out". Quites down for a while then you spring right up again. A child needs to be told how to speak

Once again the act of a child, obviously embellishing everything to a ridiculous extent. One warning has turned into " all these warnings " LOL.

Blame for what, you're the one who turned it into a discussion about me, not anyone else.

Are you willing to quote me on that

It is my quote lol, not yours.

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:04 AM

Originally posted by rogue1
Now what on earth are you talking about ? Please enlighten all of us. Seems someone is getting paranoid.

Heres your fake

Heres another one - Quote you
"""In your u2u you said your family shops at the Salvation Army, I'd hard;y be talking about clothes if I were you. """"

This is you using two accounts againest iskander, Mad scientist and Rogue1 are both the same people

QUOTE mad scientist
Rogue1 I agree with you statements in regards to the information iskander posted. Anyways, I hope to see some more of your excellent posts. Cheers

LOL right, ok you seem to know so much, who are all these other people ? COme on pluhease tell me.

Read this whole thread
Dorchester Shermans Vs Tiger&King Tiger

Quite simply it is very obvious to all who read your last few posts that you are in fact trying to mkae me look bad and continue to do so.

Mr Rogue1, i couldn't care less of what people think of you and I have withheld mentioning things at the begining. If i wanted to make you look bad or if that was my intention i would write a whole list and reference them

The only time somone compliments you is because you've found a decent pic or article, they never compliment you on your knowlege or thoughts on any subject - LOL.

I'll give you something to think about,

I have ATS Points: 26282, each post i make gets 1 point, i have about 3200 post, that leaves me with about 24000 points. Threads you make get you about 2 points a post.

Forum Subject Matter Expert (FSME) or moderators can give you Applause! which entitles you to 500 ATS points,

It doesn't matter if a member tells you how good he thinks you are, that is single to do if he was trying to badger iskander as well as you and did this to spite iskander

You can do the maths, and see who gets reconized

One warning has turned into " all these warnings "

Notice how i was talking about your behaviour and not your present state. Dont tell me you forgot about those 3 warnings in 2 days?

It is my quote lol, not yours.

You claimed
"you're the one who turned it into a discussion about me, not anyone else."

WHy dont you quote which bit i started?

[edit on 23-11-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:06 AM
Enough with this off-topic non-sense and answer my posts

I guess you ran out of things to say at the end and tried to divert the last of these post so you didn't have to answer the,

Originally posted by rogue1no tehy are actually all quite different, you don't take into consideration what was happening at the times these incidents took place.

You made a statement that they are so different but you did not go further than that argument?. There might have been different situations but the classes of threat still exist and they are flexible enough to take these into consideration. The four classes a quite broad and each event is classed into different sections so they can apply as a basic guideline to all of the different circumstances the USN will facce. My situation below could apply to many different situations because they are broad enough

If the chinese submarine was detected much eariler like some posters suggest (when it left port even), it would have been engaged in stages and would be classed as Class A, Class B, Class C or even class D. This is from the most threatening to the least threatening. Tracking would obviously be the first stage (Part D), then Pinging the submarine lightly and then heavily (Part C). If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location which would be Part B. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk by a combination of depth charges (if they still apply), or torpedos which would be much better.

Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D are alert status like the US has with its terrorist alert and could mean a whole spectum of things to consider

Well in teh other thread about Iranian UAV taking pics of some carrier. A former RN sailor who served in the Gulf said that.

Unless you've going to give me a quote, i dont have a clue which thread your talking about. I which and found all my edvidence and quotes and not one time did i not give you a source for my argument.

You should listen to your own advice I did, maybe wishful thinking from you

Some type of response you have formulated

"The "i know you are but what am i" defence?. How childish is that. If you dont have any proof, you should tell people you dont ahve any poof instead of trying to divert the subject. if you want a disucssion, I will have a discussion with you, but if all you have to say is "looks whos talking" there is no point in me responding to these childish comments and use your tactics againest yourself."

This is exactly what i am talking about when i reference you to these examples. Your reply to Iskander summed up this behaviour exactly, i could reference other threads if you want me to

The fact remains that you really don't what you are arguing about and it shows with all these examples you try and make relevent which aren't.

I know perfectly well what i am arguing about. I reference i quote from the US admiral and his own wordings of events.

here is the soviet aircraft question you cant answer

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

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:06 AM
First sign your losing a argument is when you restort to personal attacks

Quote rouge1
- Gawd, are you stupid ?
- I feel like I'm talking to an idiot

I see you dropped and did not pick up your argument about the Su-27 being allowed to fly over the US carrier when you realised I was questioning you for a source. When you quote me, can you make sure you put my words around the quote button

Originally posted by rogue1
No it is your interpretation and using a dictionary is not going to tell me anything LOL.

Its clear to anyone what "escalated into something that was very unforeseen" meant. it meant the chinese sunk being sunk. They are the comments from the US admiral about the reports that the chinese submarine

very unforeseen means a sudden unexpected development. Unless your going to say the chinese submarine surfaces and the crew does a dance, there is only one meaning when he combinded that with "But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this" means that they would have sunk the submarine as part of their exercises or treated that as a threat. If a chinese submarine has penerated the carrier battle grouops inner layer, they would have been attacked as stated by this comment about American battle group tactics

"If a submarine is detected after it penetrates to the inner screen the issue is getting weapons in the water, even if they are not accurately targeted. All and any efforts to distract the submarine from attacking the HVUs are made. Torpedo evasion maneuvers are also necessary." Which means a alert will be issued and all avaible weapons will be francitly thrown in the water. This is what Mr Fallon was meaning about the alert posture of the carrier group if the submarine was detected

Not in international peaceful waters. Sorry but you are wrong. US carriers have been overflown many times

Overflown means an aircraft, which you have yet to present some edvidence for. We are talking about a submarine underneath the aircraft carrier. You have made these statements yet you have absolutly no edvidence to suggest otherwise. You said the that the US carrier won't engage craft approching it.

US aircraft carriers have been flown around when the civillan aircraft was given permission to be flown around, and when they were flown near the carrier they wont flown over the top of the carrier. The difference between that and a situation where a submarine is ignoring warnings and has been fired upon and refuses to stop, just like the situation of the MiG-23. This just shows the rules of engagement, the Libyan aircraft did not fire on shot but refused to abide by the US aircraft and were shot down

Previous example
- Libyan jets spotted.
- Libyan jets approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Libyan jets continue to approach, F-14s begin intercept.
- Libyan jets continue their approach and comes within threatening distance.
- After warnings are dismissed, US jets are cleared for kill.

- Submarine jets spotted.
- Submarine approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Submarine continue to approach, Pinging begins.
- Submarine continues its approach and depth charges begin to be thrown.
- Submarine continues its approach and is sunk because the aircraft carrier already has a 200km "no fly" perimiter around it. (*note - no fly indicates no un-authorised entry).

You mentioned something about a previous incident 8 years ago and somehow set a "precident" for future engagements. That is pure non-sense, the rules of engagement doesn't take into account previous incidents and focuses on the threat leeel at that situation. They dont treat different countries aircraft differently, so they'll attack chinese aircraft because they were fired upon in the Korean war or vietnamese aircraft?. These are basic rules of engagement rules to abide by

Chinese and american armed forces aren't exactly friendly over the past decade and have/still are hostile because of a few incidents over that past decade

You still do not understand the difference oh well.

Its not about understanding anything, i dont believe you is closer to the truth. So you make statemetns like "its a warzone, dont you get it" does not consitute edvidence nor does that make it anymore believable if you put it that way. If you want to prove something, you should actually provide a source to state the difference between the two. Using a statement like "its a warzone, dont you get it" is not going to work.

I would the difference between the rules of engagement between a carrier on a routine military exercises and a naval vessel on a escort mission. I already know they were under orders not to fire until they are fired upon which caused the USS stark to be fired upon. Thats just one point i was going to make about their so called "warzone" metality you have. They wont there to engage other craft and were there for esort and protection duties which is much different from actually partaking in a warzone like a war in europe where naval crews and captains ahve free reign on their controls

Erm, looks like you've tied yourself into knots. unpiloted planes fon't often land by themselves

How did i tie myself in knots?. I said that rather than shooting it down and expoding the aircraft, they would have let the aircraft fly and run out of petrol so it would hopefully land safety. I dont know what you are trying to imply by that accusation

"Because it was un-piloted and more probaly hoping it landed safety so they could examine the fighter. If overflew german airspace and wasn't shot down because it was not considered a threat. If a Soviet plane did enter and was piloted and then engaged and still continued its course, it would have ended the same way as the Libyan fighters .What my point is, they were prepared to shoot down a fighter after they engaged in the rules of engagment. Your notion that no fighter was ever shot down has been disproved with the MiG-23 incident."

And it does give a prime example of rules of engagement, the fighter was not a threat and wasn't dealt with as a threat. They saw there was no pilot inside and were giving overriding commands by head quarters not to shoot it down.

the US military didn't know if the Russian bombers were carryin weapons or not and as for a simulated attack run it would look no different from any approach of Soviet aircraft to teh US caostline.

You can actually observe what variant was being flown and how many bombers were being flown at the same time. As i said before, the Bears would have to be escorted away when they reached the ADIZ (thats if they ever reached it). I know of the Bears attempts to go to the West coast of America through their pacific bases and were intercepted BEFORE they even reached the west coast. They were noramlly intercepted near Iceland and Alaska before they had the chance to come near the east coast. They also made trips down to cuba but these were monitored and did not come within range of the US coast

The Bombers did not make simulated attacks runs 200km and you are taking simulated attack runs to closely, they were flights to probe the American defense and to know their alert status which meant them making the flight to Alaska and making a quick break to see how fast they get inertcepted.

To know the difference between one Tu-95 coming towards America and one armed with nuclear weapons is much different, if they made threatening manuvers or tried to break away or open their bomb bays, they would have been shot at. But because they did not pose a threat, they were not dealth with. Again, this was at a different era from the one we are living in now. Flights by Tu-95 in the 80's were quite routine and tracked by the US. Fighters would be agressively manuvering over the Bears and would have had them on radar lock. The bears never made a threatening approach and were dealth with as if they did make one. The rules of engagement in the Cold war was set very clearly so incidents like this couldn't have happened. If you want to try and make a point about the bears making a simulated attack and being threatening you can reference something to prove your point instead of using this approach and trying to attack me into believing what you stated

You see it has set a precedent, the Mig-23's were engaging in the same tpye of provocation

Rules of engagement state, that you are only allow to engage when engaged. Like i have said before in this thread, it doesn't matter and does not take into account past incidents when you consider the ruels of engagment. All that matters is a case by case situation. China did fire on US aircraft in the Korean war. Would they be treated differently because of this mentality?. How about the vietnamese airforce, do people make them down as shoot to kill?

The Su-17 engaged in actual combat which lead to their downing. The MiG-23 did not and where there for a interception. they did not aim their missiles or target them at the F-14. This is clearly different situation from one which happened eight years beforehand. Dont try to divert this with "set the precident" for a future incident because thats has no backing at all. Like i have been saying in this thread, the RoE are set rules for case by case situation and does not factor in a past engagement between the forces a few years ago. And please dont associated this with some sort of make Libya look bad campaign because we are talking about a engagement between the fighters and not why they were there. Why were they attack in a non-warzone like you have claimed was the only area they would have been attacked. The rules of engagement stipulate quite clearly that you may only attack when you have been attacked and the MiG-23 were making intercept manuvers and did not pose an apparant threat to the American fighters and

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in