U.S. Carrier Kitty Hawk was in 28-hour Standoff with Chinese Submarine

Yonhap News ^ | 01/16/08 | Chung Juho

[TigerLikesRooster]

/begin my excerpt

U.S. Carrier Kitty Hawk was in 28-hour Standoff with Chinese Submarine

Tense battle-ready standoff in Taiwan Strait

(Hong Kong=Yonhap News) Chung Juho = U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (and its battle group) had 28-hour battle-ready standoff with a Chinese submarine and a missile destroyer in Taiwan Strait last November, it has been revealed.

This was the first military standoff between U.S. and China since the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996.

According to Jan. 16 dispatch by China Times in Taiwan, on Nov. 23 last year, Kitty Hawk battle group was en route to Japan after China refused its port call in Hong Kong, entering Taiwan Strait instead of using its normal route. China immediately dispatched a Song-class submarine which happened to be in the neighborhood, and had it track the battle group.

China also sent a missile destroyer Shenzhen from its Southern Fleet which was readying itself in Hainan Island for the (upcoming) visit to Japan, joining the Kitty Hawk watch.

The battle group with the carrier and its eight escort ships were sailing northward at an even distance away (from China and Taiwan,) and the Chinese submarine and the destroyer were following and watching the battle group from the western side along the Chinese mainland.

Carrier Kitty Hawk was alerted by a P3-C anti-submarine plane from U.S. forces in Japan that a Chinese submarine and its destroyer were following them. The group stopped sailing and went into battle-ready mode, sending out warplanes to protect the fleet.

After tense 28-hour standoff, the battle group was able to return to Yokosuka base in Japan only in Nov. 24.

According to an U.S. military source, the Chinese submarine sneaked into Taiwan Strait from west after taking a detour around Taiwan's southern shore from east, in an effort to monitor Kitty Hawk battle group. S-2T anti-submarine plane from Taiwanese navy was conducting the regular patrol in the area, but was not able to detect the submarine.

/end my excerpt

[TigerLikesRooster]

Legally there is no problem. However, there is heavy political undertones. China hates to see U.S. carrier battle group sailing in and out of Taiwan Strait. China think that it is their backyard and U.S. shouldn't be there.

U.S. Navy is saying that it can go as it please, and butt out. If China hassles U.S. Navy, it will hassle back Chinese navy.

War of nerves, and posturing. Don't screw with us or we will screw you back, and we are better at it. That is the message.

[TennesseeProfessor]

Do you mean by landing on China mainland instead of ditching at sea, or something else?

[SkyPilot]

Do you mean by landing on China mainland instead of ditching at sea, or something else?

Yes.

There is no doubt that the collision was caused by the aggressive actions of the Chinese pilot - who ejected by died.

The military gave the pilot in command the Distinguished Flying Cross - and the rest of the crew received medals, lauds, citations, and parades.

That was a travesty. The pilot should have ordered the crew to bail out, and he should have ditched the aircraft. A post-incident report said that the pilot initially ordered everyone to bail out. Then, he got the aircraft under control and decided to land a Chinese Communist Military Air Base and give them the aircraft. The crew is said to have "destroyed" sensitive equipment (this was almost impossible given the time frame involved). They were only minutely successful and our intelligence capabilities were give to the Chinese Communists on a silver platter.

One of the reports I read stated that the pilot decided not to ditch because the condition of the aircraft made ditching "impossible" and lives would have been lost.

I used to fly military transports. If you can land an aircraft (as he did on the runway), then believe me, you can ditch one at sea.

Could he or the co-pilot have been injured or killed. Yes - but his life was expendable on that type of intelligence mission, and he KNEW it. In fact, they are trained that way.

Moreover, he ample time (and the aircraft was under relative control at that time) to order the crew to bail out, toss out classified materials and equipment, and then ditch the aircraft. But, he chose to make a straight in approach and land the aircraft. And land he did - it didn't crash. Great - but he could have sent the EP-3 to the bottom of the sea instead, and our crew could have been rescued at sea.

[aroundabout]

I believe the Olympics are for more important to the Chinese then to us.

[catfish1957]

I have always felt that the most likely nuclear scenario was Chi-Com invasion of Taiwan. Anyone who thinks the Chinese are our friends are sadly mistakened.

[Psalm 73]

"....entering Taiwan Strait instead of using its normal route."

I know that it burns them up when we sail this route......(Ha, Ha!)

[Non-Sequitur]

If you can land an aircraft (as he did on the runway), then believe me, you can ditch one at sea.

If you can't recognize the difference between landing on a runway and ditching at sea then you haven't thought the issue through. The Navy doesn't go for suicide missions or poison pills for its people. Ditching or bailing out over the ocean would have meant the death of some or all of his crew.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

I have no doubt that shots will actually be fired in 2008 between the USN and the PLAN. The ChiComs really are pushing the envelope in the far Pacific....

[Quix]

Soberingly fascinating.

[Quix]

After the Olympics, they will be much more brazen and much less caring about the consequences.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

That was a travesty. The pilot should have ordered the crew to bail out, and he should have ditched the aircraft.

I disagree. Losing an entire trained aircrew would have been far more expensive than the gear on that plane. It was a tough call at the time, and I refuse to second guess him.

[Quix]

IIRC, the puppet masters have scheduled China to attack our west coast and with the Mexicans along our Southern coast and border; and Russia our east coast and through Canada.

Carter and Klintoon did not grant them essentially military bases on both ends of the Panama canal for nothing. . . . and in Long Beach, CA.

[Quix]

Right you are.

[tanknetter]

And the Navy is retiring the S-3s, with most airframes having only 50% of projected flight hours (and some 10 years after stripping out their ASW equipment) because ...?

[not2worry]

Why should we wait until after the Olympics?

USA should Boycott and let the Chi-Cons pick up the pieces.

Protect our Country not our political correctness!

[cva66snipe]

Tying up our resources while we are at war, must be another Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Klobachar, Democrat supporter.

Well for one thing Poppy and his so called military genius Cheney decommed a bunch of S-3's in 1992's budget. The rest at least most were later retired. S-3's and onboard anti-sub helo's are the primary sub detectors for carriers. Only one carrier was built with a sonar dome and the was a KH Class the AMERICA. Even the sonar dome on it was taken out IIRC in a mid 1980's overhaul. It was used when I was onboard though as I slept at waterline aft and remember hearing it pinging all night long at sea.

KITTY HAWK was in her work up operations area as she is homeported out of Japan. It would be the same as if an east coast carrier was off VACAPES or down at GITMO doing work ups.

That being said our posture with China is too appeasing and accommodating with them IMO. They should have MFNTS revoked and U.S. corporations should be encourage to withdrawl their interest there. Any trade with China is quickly becoming a nail in our national coffin. Both the Bush's and Clinton policies have put trade ahead of our national security when dealing with China. The Bush family dealings on behalf of China concern me as much as the Clinton family ones did. Neither one was a good idea.

We also need another permanent Naval Base in the south Pacific to replace Subic Bay and close the one in the M.E. for obvious security reasons. We are making a very major mistake there letting carriers pier berth there. Perth would be the safest security wise and has been a long standing emergency ship yard port & U.S. carrier friendly.

We also need to return to at least a modified Cold War posture and about two thirds Reagan era strength in all armed forces. It's also sad only one man running for POTUS is actually even addressing this type of issues.

[cva66snipe]

And the Navy is retiring the S-3s, with most airframes having only 50% of projected flight hours (and some 10 years after stripping out their ASW equipment) because ...?

Because we need to face the fact that since 1989 we have had idiots on the civilian end in the Pentagon from Sec of Def on down and having POTUS ear making all the wrong decissions on our national defenses. 1989 was when it started and it hasn't improved either. Until we have a major shake up to rid the party of the old Nixon/Ford/Bush era planners and policy makers which are for the most part the same persons making the same mistakes expecting different results things will not get better.

[LibLieSlayer]

I despise the chicoms and their agents that have infiltrated FR... they know who they are... and so do we!@ Screw the chicoms... boycott their pathetic Olympics!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

BOYCOTT baby!!! Screw the chicoms!!! They are the enemy!

LLS

[TheRightGuy]

USA should Boycott and let the Chi-Cons pick up the pieces.

can't afford to have the shelves empty at walmart