Visit theLimeyBrit's column >>

THELIMEYBRIT

wide awake in America
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 4; Links Seeded: 341
Member Since: 11/2005Last Seen: 11/19/2009

Report: Chinese destroyer forced 28-hour standoff with Kitty Hawk battle group

advertisement

A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer shadowed U.S. warships in November in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a 28-hour standoff that brought the group to a battle-ready halt in the tense waters, a report in a Taiwan daily said Tuesday.

The confrontation occurred as the Navy aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and other ships in its battle group were heading back to Japan following China's sudden cancellation of a long-scheduled [Thanksgiving] holiday port call in Hong Kong, the China Times said, citing U.S. military sources.

The carrier strike group encountered Chinese destroyer Shenzhen and a Song-class sub in the strait on Nov. 23, causing the group to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation, the Chinese-language daily reported.

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
9.0
3.1
{"commentId":1369134,"authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}

Compare and contrast the amount of press that this incident garnered (ie, very little to none) with that of the more recent incident with the Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz.

Then compare the seriousness of each encounter. The Strait of Hormuz, which involved a cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate, was a major international incident. Yet an encounter that involved an entire carrier group standing by for combat wasn't worthy of comment?

{"commentId":1369134,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:56 AM EST
{"commentId":1369306,"authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}

Iranian incident, coming within 200 meters of a US warship, they didn't state the distance, but if a carrier was involved, I'd assume at least 10 km out, and there was no garbled "I am going to explode you!" message.

They're pretty different, but I see what you mean. It makes sense, the US has no interest in starting @!$%# with China. At least currently.

{"commentId":1369306,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}
  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:32 PM EST
{"commentId":1369443,"authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}

China doesn't have as much oil as Iran and they are much, much more capable of fighting back. I'm starting to wonder why the Bush Administration isn't trying to provoke a confrontation with Nigeria. They have lots of oil.

{"commentId":1369443,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}
  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:01 PM EST
{"commentId":1369576,"authorDomain":"comsen"}

I question the accuracy of the article. An aircraft carrier is not likely to just halt in the water, let alone its escort ships.

{"commentId":1369576,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"comsen"}
  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:35 PM EST
{"commentId":1369663,"authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
An aircraft carrier is not likely to just halt in the water, let alone its escort ships.

I don't have any definite knowledge one way or the other, but I'd generally agree with you since a carrier needs wind over the bow to conduct air operations. Perhaps "halt" was a poorly chosen word, where the intended meaning was that the group deviated from its intended course and went into maneuvers that would see it prepared for a combat situation.

{"commentId":1369663,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:55 PM EST
{"commentId":1369765,"authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}

Scarlet, because most of Nigeria's oil producing area's are already owned by Shell and other American companies =)

{"commentId":1369765,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}
  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:22 PM EST
{"commentId":1369807,"authorDomain":"partisanhack"}
Yet an encounter that involved an entire carrier group standing by for combat wasn't worthy of comment?

Why, heck, everyone knows that China's our friend...right?

Politics at its worst.

{"commentId":1369807,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"partisanhack"}
  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:33 PM EST
{"commentId":1370084,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
It makes sense, the US has no interest in starting @!$%# with China. At least currently.

let me fix this for you

It makes sense, the US has no interest in starting @!$%# with China. At least currently. ever..

but I'd generally agree with you since a carrier needs wind over the bow to conduct air operations.

this is incorrect.. wind across the bow makes life easier for air ops, lack of wind will not preclude them.

{"commentId":1370084,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM EST
{"commentId":1370124,"authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
wind across the bow makes life easier for air ops, lack of wind will not preclude them.

Thanks for the clarification, tschreck. Are you a Navy guy, or a knowledgeable lay-person?

{"commentId":1370124,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 PM EST
{"commentId":1370144,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}

LB-

no problem..

im a former marine and pilot

{"commentId":1370144,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
  • 1 vote
#1.9 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:56 PM EST
{"commentId":1370229,"authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}

Cool, thanks for your service.

Can you comment on the likelihood of a carrier battle group halting dead in the water, or is my interpretation in 1.4 correct?

{"commentId":1370229,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"thelimeybrit"}
  • 1 vote
#1.10 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:17 PM EST
{"commentId":1370292,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}

It does seem that a dead halt converts the carrier into even more of a Large Stationary Target than it was to begin with. Plus it takes time to get that much mass moving again.

{"commentId":1370292,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:30 PM EST
{"commentId":1370383,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}

from what i gather, the notion that the carrier group was dead in the water is something reported by a news paper from taiwan. this is an unlikely situation given the width of the taiwan straights..it would take dozens of ships to create such a scenario.. its probably a translation issue and i'd venture a guess that the chinese vessels forced the group to maneuver thereby impeding its progress. it takes a carrier quite some time to stop once she has a full head of steam.. bear in mind that there is zero ability to maneuver without water passing the rudder, and that would be a corner that no captain would paint himself into.

all that said, i seriously doubt the group actually stopped.

{"commentId":1370383,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:58 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1370013,"authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}

Ryan,

Ah! That explains it! Thank you! : )

{"commentId":1370013,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:24 PM EST
{"commentId":1370298,"authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}

The best one comes at the end:

Last November's incident, however, could have been unintentional as the Shenzhen was also headed to Tokyo for an historic port call there, just as the Kitty Hawk was denied Hong Kong entry.

Destroyers are known to travel with a submarine escort.

The confrontation ended without incident as all vessels continued on course toward Japan by Nov. 24.

So, what is this? The US gets jittery and battleready when a Chinese vessel comes anywhere near its own ships? On China's very front porch? Does the US expect everyone to run and flee as soon as they decide to sail down their sealine?

Are international waters US territory all of a sudden?

Just the same story as with the Irani boats. We are America, we rule, unless you sink to your knees, roll over and play dead, you are aggressive.

Get prepared for much more like this. It might turn into a favourite sports of non-allied Navies.

{"commentId":1370298,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:33 PM EST
{"commentId":1371393,"authorDomain":"framed"}
Does the US expect everyone to run and flee as soon as they decide to sail down their sealine?

Yes.

{"commentId":1371393,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"framed"}
  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:27 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1371040,"authorDomain":"kimmy123"}

After too many years of lies. I wonder if this is just another story to scare the US in to another war?
This is the only course left to keep the Republicans in power.
Keep everyone scared of every evil in the world and we promise to keep you safe.
The only thing missing is honesty and the truth.

{"commentId":1371040,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"kimmy123"}
    Reply#4 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:14 PM EST
    {"commentId":1371325,"authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}

    TSR,
    "At least currently. ever.."
    I'd have to disagree.
    Look at what the US is trying to do around China. Getting Japan to re-militarize, keeping Taiwan supported, making a military alliance with India, and in general trying to buy the loyalty of as many countries surrounding China as possible. It's old school geo-politics, as China just has to not freak out that the U.S. is trying to surround them and they'll still eventually become a more powerful than the Americans economic wise.

    Not mention one of the (I think) ulterior motives for Iraq. If you look at the oil shipping lines, and where most of China's oil comes from, controlling Iraq puts the Americans hands literally on the tap of a large bulk of China's oil, which is of course of insane strategic importance. The Americans definitly have China in mind as a future foe, even if its just because of the mindset of the current American leadership that for the U.S. to be safe and successful, they *have* to be number one.

    {"commentId":1371325,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"ryan-salter"}
      Reply#5 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:59 PM EST
      {"commentId":1371420,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
      Getting Japan to re-militarize, keeping Taiwan supported, making a military alliance with India, and in general trying to buy the loyalty of as many countries surrounding China as possible.

      interesting analysis.. i don't buy it though.

      we are trying to remilitarize japan so our defense guys can sell a big pile of stuff to them.. people paid big money to get the neocons into office, and they want a return on their investment.

      there is not a measure of time short enough to describe how fast we will leave taiwan high and dry should that conflict go hot. it probably won't though as the people have voted out the party that always wants a fight with china in the last week or so.

      i'm not so sure about india.. the only people they have the potential to go to war with is pakistan. the way things are going that would be pretty ugly.. don't know how that really effects us but i'd guess the same reasons as japan above.

      now for one moment think about what country has the largest border with china and think then for a moment about the possibilities of buying them off..

      now i do think you might be right about oil, but if it comes down to fighting for it, we'll lose our asses right up until the moment that nukes start flying, and at that point, we won't need it anyway.

      we have really cool military hardware and a 1.2 million brave souls to run it. the chinese have not as good hardware, but what they lose in quality, they make up for bigtime in quantity with nearly double the troops and triple the fighter aircraft. they don't have a big nuke arsenal, but it's big enough..

      even w in all his moronic glory knows better...

      {"commentId":1371420,"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
        Reply#6 - Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:38 PM EST
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"203852","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"203852","contentId":"1231961"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking