jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/21/84)
A most interesting item passed by on the news this morning. Supposedly a US Aircraft Carrier, the Kitty Hawk, collided with a USSR sub this morning (EST). The news article says that neither sub nor boat knew of the others existance before the collision. The Kitty Hawk is reported undamaged, the sub is heading toward Vladivostok(sp) at 5 knots. A heliocopter could not find any evidence of damage on the sub, which refused US aid. I can't believe that neither the sub nor the carrier knew nothing of the other's presence. Comments, please, if you have real information or experience with such systems? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
spam@eneevax.UUCP (03/22/84)
The Washington Post reported that the sub "bumped into" the
carrier. How quaint! How dumb!
I get my news from Netnews!
--
--Alea iacta est,
John ("Spam") Rehwinkel
uucp: ..!seismo!rlgvax!umcp-cs!eneevax!spam
(I love getting mail!)djl@fisher.UUCP (Dan Levin N6BZA ) (03/23/84)
The crew of the Kitty Hawk claimed it wasn't their fault,
that the sub was running without lights. But,...
I'm sure the Russian's have a different opinion.
Any way, according to the 'Journal, neither vessel was
damaged. Hard to believe that in this day of Ghz radar
and modern anti-sub sonor, they could just run into one
and other!
--
***dan
{ihnp4 | decvax | ucbvax}!allegra!fisher!djl
The misplaced (you call *that* a mountain ?!?!?) Californianbae@fisher.UUCP (The Master of Sinanju) (03/23/84)
I know the man who used to be the Captain of the Hawk, and from what
he told me, and from what I know, there is no way in hell a Russian sub
would have ever have gotten within 50 miles of the Kitty Hawk, without being
challenged/blown out of the water.
--
Brian A. Ehrmantraut
Ad Maioram Gloriam Hasturi!
{ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!allegra!fisher!baephaedrus@eneevax.UUCP (03/23/84)
So that's why your name is "spam".
P.S. Please don't beat me up it was only a joke.
--
From the contorted brain, and the rotted body of THE SOPHIST
ARPA: phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrusmoriarty@uw-june (Jeff Meyer) (03/26/84)
Who says our aircraft carriers are obsolete and impotent?! Proof positive that the opposite is true. Moriarty
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (03/26/84)
>> Who says our aircraft carriers are obsolete and impotent?! >> Proof positive that the opposite is true. >> >> Moriarty Yes, they are fully capable of getting hit accidently by another ship. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
levaseur@nmtvax.UUCP (03/29/84)
It should be remembered that this is not the first time a Russian sub has collided with an American carrier. At first, I thought that this was just another end result of another game of 'chicken' which Russian sub commanders seem to engage in with American ships. Remember the collision between another Russian sub and the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy in the Med. some years ago, that too was a game of chicken that they were playing. As I understand, the Navy has standing orders to commanders not to 'chicken out', and remain on course. roger m. levasseur ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!levaseur