Comments on: Behind the Kitty Hawk Incident (Updated)

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:47:59 +0000

Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

By: S. Thomsen

S. Thomsen — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:06:19 +0000

During the latest conflict in Irak, a Danish type 106/107 did the same thing to a battle gruop in the Gulf. It was in shooting distance of a carrier and was not detected.

By: William chao

William chao — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:23:57 +0000

USS Kitty Hawk passed through Taiwan Straight 12/08/2007. Only super power can do that!! Imaging Chinese Aircraft carrier showed up at San Diego! Not going to happen.

By: andy pote

andy pote — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:31:02 +0000

Lets see. #1 china shoots down weather satellite.
#2 China’s Song Class Sub surfaces near Kittty Hawk.
#3 Bejin denies entry to Hong Kong port to USS Kitty Hawk and Support Vessels, for Thanksgiving Day liberty.
I cant be the only one here that sees a pattern.

By: man

man — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:10:42 +0000

counter intel gentleman, very simple.
read some sun tzu or mercer.
allow your enemy advances on your watch , not theres.
Modern passive array can detect and distiguish aquatic and non aquatic signatures over 300KM.
Active is much greater than that, do not discount the USA, never underestimate.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:24:12 +0000

In a major war, every carrier would be nuked in the first hour. They are the modern day gunboat.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:53:56 +0000

Scrap the carriers and build subs? Are you nuts? Of course we need subs, but subs can’t carry planes, and air power trumps subs every day of the week, especially in a land conflict. What we really need are some intimidating Battleships, like the Iowa-class. During the Iraq War #1, the Iraqis were terrified of the Battleships off their coastline lobbing VW-weight shells their way. I think we need to spook the Iranians with them again, just for the fun of it.

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:27:56 +0000

The elephant in the room here is that the carrier is no longer the capital ship. It has gone the way of the battleship and been replaced by the submarine. ASW efforts only waste resources — scrap the carriers and build subs…

By: JQP

JQP — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:36:19 +0000

The Collins class boats used by Australia gave a good account of themselves http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082993693.html not I think powered by an AIP system but good old fashioned diesel & batteries from Kockums of Sweden. Train hard and fight easy on the lessons learned.

By: L.

L. — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:26:24 +0000

Senario #1 — Was the Chinese Song-class submarine under the total (100%) control of a U.S. friendly crew (military or otherwise) 100% allied with the United States or NATO? If so, then this goes a long way in explaining why the sub was permitted within or near the sensitive security perimeter of the USS Kitty Hawk.
Senario #2 — Now if Senario #1 is not the case then we have a huge problem; and it does not matter what the reason(s) is(are) for the sub’s surfacing. And that’s because if the Chinese Song-class submarine was armed it could have taken out the USS Kitty Hawk (4000+ lives) and whatever other ships it desired; and doing this with the full expectation that after such an attack the submarine itself would probably be destroyed, either by the sub’s crew or by the United States assets in the region. While one shudders at the thought of Senario #2, have we forgotten about the USS Cole disaster?