China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 13, 2006
A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.
The surprise encounter highlights China’s continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing’s communist-ruled military.
The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations’ militaries.
Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.
According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.
The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group’s planes. The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.
According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.
A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified.
Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.
The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties.
However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to key facilities, including a Beijing command center. In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities.
Additionally, military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing.
The restrictions are hindering efforts to know more about China’s military buildup, the officials said.
“This is a harbinger of a stronger Chinese reaction to America’s military presence in East Asia,” said Richard Fisher, a Chinese military specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, who called the submarine incident alarming.
“Given the long range of new Chinese sub-launched anti-ship missiles and those purchased from Russia, this incident is very serious,” he said. “It will likely happen again, only because Chinese submarine captains of 40 to 50 new modern submarines entering their navy will want to test their mettle against the 7th Fleet.”
Pentagon intelligence officials say China’s military buildup in recent years has produced large numbers of submarines and surface ships, seeking to control larger portions of international waters in Asia, a move U.S. officials fear could restrict the flow of oil from the Middle East to Asia in the future.
Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines, including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel- and nuclear-powered.
Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships.
“The Chinese have made it clear that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict,” an intelligence official said recently.
In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan’s military went on emergency alert after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters. Beijing apologized for the incursion.
The Pentagon’s latest annual report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing heavily in weapons designed “to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific.”
It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a protest with China’s government over the incident or otherwise raised the matter in official channels.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 15:59
Sounds like a nice place you have.
and I didn’t tell you about the young ladies! :diablo:
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 15:37
Interesting? Well, regardless is about 09:30am here in sunny Florida. I live about 15k from US Central Command @ MacDill AFB in Tampa. Which, is great because we get alot of Military Traffic from F-22’s to F/A-18’s. Also, we get occasional port visits with three ships from the JMSDF being the most recent. That said, the Royal Navy make Tampa a yearly port call…………. 😀
Its all good…………… 😀
FLAY NAVY 😎
Sounds like a nice place you have.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 14:31
I couldnt tell, due to the nature of my lifestyle I dont pay much attention to it.
Interesting? Well, regardless is about 09:30am here in sunny Florida. I live about 15k from US Central Command @ MacDill AFB in Tampa. Which, is great because we get alot of Military Traffic from F-22’s to F/A-18’s. Also, we get occasional port visits with three ships from the JMSDF being the most recent. That said, the Royal Navy make Tampa a yearly port call…………. 😀
Its all good…………… 😀
FLAY NAVY 😎
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 14:17
What time is it in your neck of the woods?
I couldnt tell, due to the nature of my lifestyle I dont pay much attention to it.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 14:14
Which is why I said the question is eemingly unanswerable.
What time is it in your neck of the woods?
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 14:07
No SSK could keep up with a Carrier Battle Group moving at speed…….so more than likely the Chinese Sub was in its path and surfaced after in moved by? While this is a threat it would depend more on being in the right place at the right time! Further, we still don’t know if USN SSN’s were with the Kitty Hawk? Also, who says the Battle Group was not aware the Chinese Submarine was within in area of operations? Maybe Japanese Submarines were stalking the Chinese Sub and didn’t even know it! Really, far more questions than reliable answers……………. :rolleyes:
Which is why I said the question is eemingly unanswerable.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 13:36
Certainly true considering that they were still building Mings, upto 2000. But the seemingly unanswerable question is, how well do the latest Songs compare with their western counterparts?
No SSK could keep up with a Carrier Battle Group moving at speed…….so more than likely the Chinese Sub was in its path and surfaced after in moved by? While this is a threat it would depend more on being in the right place at the right time! Further, we still don’t know if USN SSN’s were with the Kitty Hawk? Also, who says the Battle Group was not aware the Chinese Submarine was within in area of operations? Maybe Japanese Submarines were stalking the Chinese Sub and didn’t even know it! Really, far more questions than reliable answers……………. :rolleyes:
By: Pioneer - 24th November 2006 at 12:19
Wake up United States
I think this emphasizes the fact that the US Navy has prematurely phased out its carrier-based aircraft and capabilities, the likes of the Lockheed S-3 Viking ASW aircraft.
It just never ceases to amaze me that after all that was learnt, during WWII in the way of the threat and potential of submarine, and the capability and designs that the Soviet Union was able to design and field, has all just been blown away on the so called grounds of cost effectiveness and American arrogance!
For has it not occurred to the US Navy, that the proliferation of submarines has only grown with the finish of the Cold War?
And just because the Soviet empire had collapsed, this has not stopped the likes of the Russian’s (and I would say in good time the PRC) from selling everything and anything to whom ever has the cash!
After all the PRC, no longer has to spend time and money to develop and perfect these advanced technologies of modern submarine warfare. Not when it can buy it, steel it, study it, and re-engineer it (as it has in the past and is still doing today) and then field it, which is supposedly have been a shock to the United States
Wake up US Navy, for how many times does one need to re-learn the dangers and threats of submarine warfare history and common to its senses?????????????????????????????????
Regards
Pioneer
By: Neptune - 24th November 2006 at 11:51
Hello Steve, long time since I had an argument with you. But this time I’m not at all having an argument with you. I sincerely agree with you.
You just have to watch a maritime chart and you know where those exercise areas are. It’s pretty largely indicated, also the route to such an area from a certain port is a pretty fixed thing. Given that they were having two fleets together, it would have been stupid of any possible enemy to start an engagement there and set off a war with two of the most capable navies at one time. Hence, no need to alter your route to the area all the time.
It’s also easy as you can just see your civilian NAVTEX, such exercises don’t go unnoticed as South Japanese waters are pretty crowded. All you have to do is have one Chinese or China related merchant ship in the area and you can perfectly pinpoint that fleet and send an SSK that way. In wartime everything changes, this approach is not at all representative of anyones capabilities. Happens all the time in piecetime.
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 11:48
found this on CDF…
China confirms PLA sub with ‘silencing technology’ stalked U.S. aircraft carrier
East-Asia-Intel.com, November 22, 2006A Chinese press report confirmed that a Chinese submarine did shadow the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier undetected and identified the submarine’s commander.
The PRC-owned Zhongguo Tongxun She in Hong Kong said PLA Navy Deputy Commander Ding Yiping commanded the submarine.A Type 039A Song-class submarine: “China has improved silencing technology so it is difficult to detect Chinese submarines,” an expert said.
Quoting well-informed sources, the news agency reported that Song-class submarine, identified by the Chinese as a Type 039A, is part of the 32d Detachment of the South China Sea Fleet.
The operation was led by Ding who is regarded as one of the most important naval operational leaders.“In September this year, after Ding Yiping’s arrival at Sanya in Hainan Province, the said submarine disappeared from the Yulin Naval Base in Hainan,” a source was quoted as saying. “The submarine on 26 October suddenly surfaced within five nautical miles of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk.”
The report quoted a Chinese analyst as saying “the current case of stalking a U.S. aircraft carrier shows China has greatly improved the silencing technology of the 039A-class submarine. China has also significantly strengthened its capability of detecting electronic signals of the U.S. fleet.”
A military expert told the agency that the Chinese navy in recent years has built up its submarine capabilities and rapidly improved their quality.
“China has improved silencing technology so it is difficult to detect Chinese submarines,” the expert said. “In the past two years, China imported eight submarines from Russia. Meanwhile, China is stepping up the production of the 039A-class conventional submarine, namely the Song-class submarine being cited at this time. On this basis, China is taking further steps to produce the latest submarine that is called the Yuan-class submarine by Western countries.”
——————————————————————————–
East-Asia-Intel, www.east-asia-intel.com, November 22, 2006
Copyright © 2006 East West Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
Certainly true considering that they were still building Mings, upto 2000. But the seemingly unanswerable question is, how well do the latest Songs compare with their western counterparts?
By: hallo84 - 24th November 2006 at 08:59
found this on CDF…
China confirms PLA sub with ‘silencing technology’ stalked U.S. aircraft carrier
East-Asia-Intel.com, November 22, 2006
A Chinese press report confirmed that a Chinese submarine did shadow the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier undetected and identified the submarine’s commander.
The PRC-owned Zhongguo Tongxun She in Hong Kong said PLA Navy Deputy Commander Ding Yiping commanded the submarine.
A Type 039A Song-class submarine: “China has improved silencing technology so it is difficult to detect Chinese submarines,” an expert said.
Quoting well-informed sources, the news agency reported that Song-class submarine, identified by the Chinese as a Type 039A, is part of the 32d Detachment of the South China Sea Fleet.
The operation was led by Ding who is regarded as one of the most important naval operational leaders.
“In September this year, after Ding Yiping’s arrival at Sanya in Hainan Province, the said submarine disappeared from the Yulin Naval Base in Hainan,” a source was quoted as saying. “The submarine on 26 October suddenly surfaced within five nautical miles of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk.”
The report quoted a Chinese analyst as saying “the current case of stalking a U.S. aircraft carrier shows China has greatly improved the silencing technology of the 039A-class submarine. China has also significantly strengthened its capability of detecting electronic signals of the U.S. fleet.”
A military expert told the agency that the Chinese navy in recent years has built up its submarine capabilities and rapidly improved their quality.
“China has improved silencing technology so it is difficult to detect Chinese submarines,” the expert said. “In the past two years, China imported eight submarines from Russia. Meanwhile, China is stepping up the production of the 039A-class conventional submarine, namely the Song-class submarine being cited at this time. On this basis, China is taking further steps to produce the latest submarine that is called the Yuan-class submarine by Western countries.”
——————————————————————————–
East-Asia-Intel, www.east-asia-intel.com, November 22, 2006
Copyright © 2006 East West Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
By: plawolf - 19th November 2006 at 12:16
Absolutely not!. SOP’s will not necessarily see a sonar watch set if the ship is not in defence watches. I’d be utterly amazed if any active sonars where transmitting as the ships were not steaming at that readiness condition and active sonar is the best way to catch an SSK making steerageway.
Noticed how I said ‘passive’ in my last post? The carrier had ASW cruisers/destroyers and at least one SSN with it. Depending on the speed the force was moving at, the passive sonar on the surface ships could be affected, but not the sonar on the SSN.
Also, even in wartime, carriers would not be pinning the hell out of every square inch of water for 20 miles in every direction around them, most of the time, it would be a bad idea to use active sonar at all since thats about the best way an oppenent with the right kit could hope for to pinpoint the carrier and organise an attack.
No, again, using the same waters repeatedly is a common practise for most navies as it allows for a known-environment benchmark to judge crew and equipment performance against. Soviets did this, we do it (every Thursday actually!) and the Yanks do the same…as demonstrated here.
The ‘same waters’ could be one huge area and almost always is. Also, the first artical said that this incident occured which the Kitty Hawk as on transit to the excerise area, which would throw the boadries out even further.
Quite true…..but then I wasnt the one stating that this was indicative of China’s all-conquering submarine capability or that this would send a clear message to the yankee pigdogs! (my own exaggeration to make the point!).
And who was? :confused:
I just made the point that this was a very poor choice of position if the intent was to send the message to the USN fleet that a threat existed to them. I rechecked my figures on the torpedo solution btw and using the published speed and range characteristics for the Russian 53-65 wake-homer (10.3nm range @ 45knts) if the carrier steamed on opposite bearing at 25knts the torpedo would run out of juice 2 minutes before impact.
Purhaps that is the reason they chose 5nm, so its not too overt a threat. Remember China and the US are not in a cold war, so it pays not to be too blunt.
The point about the AShM is valid but how many AShM’s does a Song class carry? 2 maybe 4 perhaps?. What damage do you think 4 medium sized missiles will do to a CVN even if they could be fired within that close a range?. Seems a slightly suicidal attack plan to sacrifice a sub just to scratch a carriers paintwork a bit!
What makes you think there will only be one sub in war time? Besides, even with just one boat, 4 165kg semi armour pericing HE warheads is nothing to snear at, especially if they all have a near 100% hit probablity.
So again the rhetorical question would be what value is there in surfacing the submarine in this, non-threatening, position?
To show the USN that one of the PLAN’s older sub types can get under its guard into a striking position purhaps? Also, being the USN commander, can you take the chance in assuming that PLAN SSKs can’t get even a little bit closer to your carriers next time? Thus you would need to adjust your strategy and loss assessments accordingly.
By: Jonesy - 19th November 2006 at 07:16
Ridiculous, Tell me, Oracle, why ANNUALEX 2006 happened in oct but ANNUALEX 2005 in Nov? Hey, for you to send in one slow moving boat without notice, every hour counts but yet you let go weeks in time deficit but still so confidently say Yes? You want to fantasy story talking or some reasonable discussion?
You would seriously be suggesting that a week either way makes a difference?. Plus I didnt say that ‘you send in one boat’ did I?. I’d fully expect that if the intent was to observe ANNUALEX 06 that more than one SSK was dispatched. Either the others didn’t get contacts or wisely chose to be a bit more discrete if they did get contacts!.
Okinawa! Great, so 100 or 200 kms up & down or to the east or to the west of Okinawa will make you totally clueless for whereabouts of the CVBG, use the 100-200 kms as the radius to draw a circle in your map, you won’t be surprise to find the total area is 30000 sq Kms to 120000 sq kms, You are fantastic to talk your SSK running at 4-5 knots to combing of 30000 – 120000 kms area in order to perform a “surfacing” show.
Well as you so correctly pointed out the exercise does have an extended endurance so a few SSK’s do have a little time to cover some ground. They are patrol submarines…..and they….erm…..patrol!?. Hope this isnt too hard for you to follow!. As stated I am at a loss to explain the ‘surfacing show’.
Judged from your reply so far, of course you also believe the Kitty Hawk visited say somewhere 100 kms east of Okinawa last year will be visiting the same spot at the same time this year.
Operating in the same general area yes. Does help to know roughly which patrol boxes to task SSK’s with when you’ve observed targets exercising in the area before!.
What?! A couple of SSKs waiting in a area to be as vast as tens of thousands of sq kms hoping for a close glance of the charming “ Kitty Hawk” just miles away? Do you really believe USN submarines also practice your “fortune teller” style tactics to locate the fleet but no real time information input from surveillance?
There is nothing fortune teller about knowing the exercise areas of other navies and staking them out. We had Soviet subs forever lurking about off Arran when they were running the Perisher course up there!. The Russians still exercise in roughly the same waters they’ve always done and we still go north to watch them. Your SSK lads were tasked to pay a visit on the joint USN/JMSDF exercise in the southern Sea of Japan that runs end October to early November why is this a hard concept for you to grasp?.
By: Pinko - 19th November 2006 at 06:43
I’d love to answer ‘yes’ to that but the issue here really is blindingly obvious and – thanks to your post – we can see you’ve had it spelled out for you on two forums no less!.
Ridiculous, Tell me, Oracle, why ANNUALEX 2006 happened in oct but ANNUALEX 2005 in Nov? Hey, for you to send in one slow moving boat without notice, every hour counts but yet you let go weeks in time deficit but still so confidently say Yes? You want to fantasy story talking or some reasonable discussion?
Its interesting to note the line below the one you highlighted:
“During this deployment, Kitty Hawk will also take part in ANNUALEX 2006, a joint exercise between the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.”
Now utilising all my skills and brilliance, involving complex intelligence procedures (searching on the internet), I was able to localise the USN oparea for ANNUALEX 2005!. In early November last year the USS Kittyhawk was steaming around the Sea of Japan and down near, you guessed it, Okinawa!.
Okinawa! Great, so 100 or 200 kms up & down or to the east or to the west of Okinawa will make you totally clueless for whereabouts of the CVBG, use the 100-200 kms as the radius to draw a circle in your map, you won’t be surprise to find the total area is 30000 sq Kms to 120000 sq kms, You are fantastic to talk your SSK running at 4-5 knots to combing of 30000 – 120000 kms area in order to perform a “surfacing” show. Judged from your reply so far, of course you also believe the Kitty Hawk visited say somewhere 100 kms east of Okinawa last year will be visiting the same spot at the same time this year.
It takes neither genius nor a competent ocean-survillance capability to station a couple of SSK’s to patrol the exercise areas the 7th fleet have used repeatedly at this time of year.
What?! A couple of SSKs waiting in a area to be as vast as tens of thousands of sq kms hoping for a close glance of the charming “ Kitty Hawk” just miles away? Do you really believe USN submarines also practice your “fortune teller” style tactics to locate the fleet but no real time information input from surveillance? Are they playing this near the narrow water way or vastly open ocean? Finally, the SSN is faster and much longer haul than SSK.
Dont be disheartened though Pinko, we all know how you love feverishly waving your flag so you go right ahead – I’m sure no one will mind!
If only you’re real oracle..
By: HuntingHawk - 19th November 2006 at 06:21
From the Forum link Pinko posted….
Kitty Hawk on
17Oct2006, departed Yokosuka for fall cruise
17Oct-20Oct2006, WestPac
23Oct-25Oct2006, Philippine Sea
26Oct-27Oct2006, WestPac
30Oct-31Oct2006, South China Sea
01Nov-05Nov2006, East China Sea
06Nov-07Nov2006, Sasebo, Japan
By: Jonesy - 19th November 2006 at 06:19
Well, from my sources, the known torpedoes the Chinese use are the Russian 53-65 wake homer and the TEST-71/96 wire-guided torpedo. Neither is good enough to catch a target with a 5nm head start. Both have a stated range of 20km not 20nm.
The USN chappie in the first article discusses wake homing torpedoes so my assumption is that he’s talking about the 53-65 or some Chinese variant thereof.
As PLAWolf states very little is known on the performance of Chinese Yu- series torpedoes except for the external physical similarities some have to other countries torpedoes. I have seen an image of a Yu-4, I think it was, that looked a lot like a TEST-71 for example but that means precisely nothing!. Question is do the PLAN have a first-tier ADCAP/Spearfish comparable HWT? If they do then 5nm IS within the danger zone…as I stated initially….going by known information though it is most definitely not!. Can you guarantee that 5nm isnt inside the minimum range inhibit for the YJ-82?.
Maybe they did choose to surface outside of effective torpedo range. The question would then be what message they were intending to convey by taking such action?. It could be ‘we could have shot you as you went by’ but then there would be nothing to let the USN know for definite that the sub was within range when they went past?. If there was a subtle little demonstration of threat intended, as I said, the SSK surfaces 20,000 yards in front of the group and steams off on a perpendicular bearing. That says ‘you are in our backyard and we can slap you anytime we want’ – had they done that we would definitely NOT be having this conversation!.
By: Devils Advocate - 19th November 2006 at 05:48
This is the point though DA….as shown above 5nm is NOT deadly striking range to the USN fleet. Torpedoes travel at specific speeds for specific periods of time if you fire a torpedo at a target thats too far away to catch then you waste the torpedo its that simple!.
I’ve read that Song torpedos have a range ~20nm, so apparently 5nm is “deadly” in the sense at that range there not much room and time for countermeasures according to what the “experts” are saying about this incident. Hence, why so many seem to be alarmed. Plus, 5 nm is a deadly range for Song anti-ship missiles. Also, you’re assuming that this was ineptness in part of the Song skipper. Nothing suggests that the Song was forced to surface so it must have been intentional to only when KH routine patrols spotted it. Maybe they chose 5nm as a safe distance to send their message and not turn it into an out of control situation.
By: Jonesy - 19th November 2006 at 05:12
Pinko
I’d love to answer ‘yes’ to that but the issue here really is blindingly obvious and – thanks to your post – we can see you’ve had it spelled out for you on two forums no less!.
Its interesting to note the line below the one you highlighted:
“During this deployment, Kitty Hawk will also take part in ANNUALEX 2006, a joint exercise between the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.”
Now utilising all my skills and brilliance, involving complex intelligence procedures (searching on the internet), I was able to localise the USN oparea for ANNUALEX 2005!. In early November last year the USS Kittyhawk was steaming around the Sea of Japan and down near, you guessed it, Okinawa!.
It takes neither genius nor a competent ocean-survillance capability to station a couple of SSK’s to patrol the exercise areas the 7th fleet have used repeatedly at this time of year.
Dont be disheartened though Pinko, we all know how you love feverishly waving your flag so you go right ahead – I’m sure no one will mind!.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th November 2006 at 03:52
Jonesy,
Are you really so superb by reading the below news briefing then you can insert your slow moving SSK into the route of a moving CVBG
Nothing is said about escorting SSN’s???
By: Pinko - 19th November 2006 at 03:36
Jonesy,
Are you really so superb by reading the below news briefing then you can insert your slow moving SSK into the route of a moving CVBG
Kitty Hawk Strike Group Gets Underway
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26118
Story Number: NNS061018-13
Release Date: 10/18/2006 11:55:00 AMBy Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Matthew Reinhardt, USS Kitty Hawk Public Affairs
USS KITTY HAWK, At Sea (NNS) — USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) and its strike group departed Yokosuka, Japan, Oct. 17, for a fall deployment with embarked Carrier Air Wing 5 after completing a month of maintenance.
The strike group is expected to return to Yokosuka by the end of the year.
Other ships departing with the Kitty Hawk Tuesday included the guided-missile cruiser USS Cowpens (CG 63), and guided-missile destroyers USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and USS Mustin (DDG 89).
The destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) and guided-missile frigate USS Gary (FFG 51) left Yokosuka last week.
About 7,400 Sailors departed with the eight ships, including more than 5,200 aboard Kitty Hawk alone.
Kitty Hawk, leading the Navy’s only forward-deployed carrier strike group, will spend the underway period conducting carrier qualifications, drills and exercises in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility. 😮
During this deployment, Kitty Hawk will also take part in ANNUALEX 2006, a joint exercise between the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.
During the brief in-port period, Kitty Hawk Sailors worked with Ship’s Repair Facility workers, and Japanese contractors on several hundred maintenance projects, said Lt. Cmdr. Billy Partington, Kitty Hawk’s maintenance officer.
“The ship’s engineers had to work extra long hours fixing extra discrepancies that were discovered as maintenance was performed,” said Partington. “Their efforts brought [the ship] back up to 100 percent [mission] capable.”
The Kitty Hawk Strike Group is the largest carrier strike group in the Navy. It includes Kitty Hawk, the aircraft squadrons and staff of Carrier Air Wing 5, USS Shiloh (CG 67) and Cowpens, and Destroyer Squadron 15 staff. The group’s ships and destroyer squadron staff are based at Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, and the air wing and staff are based at Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan.
Sign In
November 13, 2006 at 7:18 am