AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I'm sure as much as possible they don't want to see it happen again so we either won't see it happen anytime soon or it won't be advertised when it does.
PLAN sub appears close to the USS Kitty Hawk again?
- Thread starter maozedong
- Start date
- Status
Dear Sirs:
In world war 2, submarines sank as many capital ships as all other sources combined. Those old vessels had terribly limited capabilities compared to modern diesel-electric subs. Whether it was in range, stealth, armament, propulsion and armament, they can't compare to the newer conventional subs.
The tactics used were simple, 1) deploy a fairly large number of subs along the expected course of your target, 2) wait and invariably one of your guesses will be correct and the opposing fleet will steam into your patrol area.
The enemy comes to you, keeping your own maneuvering (hence stealth) to a minimum.
That submarine ambush should be successful in this day and age should surprise no one, least of all those who operate capital ships and carrier battle groups and are students of naval history.
That said it does sound like a re-hash of the old story. Still surfacing within sight of the carrier would mean that the sub would have been able to sink it if hostilities ensued.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
In world war 2, submarines sank as many capital ships as all other sources combined. Those old vessels had terribly limited capabilities compared to modern diesel-electric subs. Whether it was in range, stealth, armament, propulsion and armament, they can't compare to the newer conventional subs.
The tactics used were simple, 1) deploy a fairly large number of subs along the expected course of your target, 2) wait and invariably one of your guesses will be correct and the opposing fleet will steam into your patrol area.
The enemy comes to you, keeping your own maneuvering (hence stealth) to a minimum.
That submarine ambush should be successful in this day and age should surprise no one, least of all those who operate capital ships and carrier battle groups and are students of naval history.
That said it does sound like a re-hash of the old story. Still surfacing within sight of the carrier would mean that the sub would have been able to sink it if hostilities ensued.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
You may continue to believe what you want to believe.
Last year when the same thing happened the USN immediatley went into spin mode and fully admitted the incident happened. Other US media got right on the story. This year nothing. Even the anti-Bush/military media sources like CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS have published nothing about this incident.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Absolutely. Why did a rag like the Daily Mail report it (without even making reference to a date) and no one else? It was big news last time, yet I can't remember any of the big UK broadsheets writing on it recently.
So unless people believe the UN Shadow Government/Global Conspiracy Organisation stopped the UK media from publishing full details, it's quite obvious they knew it was trash.
I must confess to being 50/50 on this.
On the one hand the only news report I see this in is the Daily Mail and we all know what the Mail is like:roll:
On the other hand; to badly paraphrase Wilde "To have one sub surface close to you could be considered unfortunate, to have two.........."
On the one hand the only news report I see this in is the Daily Mail and we all know what the Mail is like:roll:
On the other hand; to badly paraphrase Wilde "To have one sub surface close to you could be considered unfortunate, to have two.........."
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
........to have two would be what some people want to hear so they'll believe it?
- Status