13 November 2006

now station the snoopy detail

why is drudge and the washington times making such a big deal out of this "incident?" we remember back when we were in the navy and coming out of the portsmouth naval shipyard after an eighteen month complex overhaul (coh) in which we had among other things a couple of tomahawk missile launchers added and port and starboard vulcan phalanx gattling gun systems. we were met by a russian spy ship called an AGI shortly after clearing chess light and shadowed for days. thats where we got the title for our post. the snoopy detail was the spooks (cryptologist technicians [CT] and intelligence specialists [IS]) would come up to the signal bridge and take pictures of the AGI.

then not long after that we were down around puerto rico testing our missile's when another or the same AGI was out there fouling our missile range. our old man got on the bridge to bridge radio (channel 16) and asked the AGI captain to clear out and the russian replied that this was international waters and would do as they please. lol. eventually they left though.

the kitty hawks problem it would seem to us would be that they have lousy lookouts. according to the washington times article the chinese submarine surfaced only five miles from the carrier yet was spotted by an airplane. five miles seems like a long way but at sea its really not considering that you can see for twenty-five to thirty miles.

writing as someone who is a qualified lookout and has spent probably thousands of hours standing lookout watches the worst thing that could ever happen to you would be for the smart ass operation specialists [OS} in combat information center or worse yet the old man or the officer of the deck spot a submarine before the lookouts.

hotstreams.ru forum links here
topic 16 msg 357