It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where are the Carriers?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Keep your eyes on the Carriers they have 8 ready for action 3 deployed not far away currently and 2 should be ready by December. That is what they are waiting for I think That would bring a total of 10 Ready for action anywhere world wide Just imagine 5 in Iran/Iraq with full compliment of battle group. I have been kinda watching to see what they are doing with the Carriers for a while as that is where our Air support really would be and as we all know control the Air you control the ground too. 5 Carriers alone could take on the entire Iranian Air Force not to mention what we have on the ground in Iran and any support Isreal might provide. Iran made a statement We have 1600+ missles pointed at stratigic targets. Imagine an armada of Planes with the ability to take out 10+ targets each... Incredible!

www.globalsecurity.org...

Take Care.




posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
LOL 5 carriers can WAY more than take on Irans Air Force. Military stretegists say we only need two carriers to provide continuous 24 hour bombing raids and defend against competing Air Force squadrons. 5 carriers is complete overkill and i highly doubt you will see that in any one given location unless it because of a rotation where certain carrier groups are being subbed out.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
If you go to the website below, it shows you on a world map where the carrier groups are.

There Are Eight Battle Groups at Sea

Don't know how accurate it really is.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I highly doubt there are 5 of our 8 just off the coast of Oman. This would provide only that one flooding out in the Pacific to defend Taiwan and react to anything China or NK did. I doubt the commandor of PACCOM or the joint cheifs would allow that.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MaxCola45
 



Oh wow, they've christened a carrier the USS George H.W. Bush

Unbelievable that they would name a carrier after that lousy azz president.
I wouldnt mind seeing a USS Nixon though lol..
I wonder if theyll ever christen one named the USS Clinton? especially after that famous comment, "I loathe the military"


Anyway, I agree with the above poster, i seriously doubt that there are 5 carrier groups grouped near Oman as the map shows.. He makes a good point about the need to have carriers closer to China/N. Korea, at all times..



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Oh yes, carrier groups of mass destruction. How bouts we just keep our missiles in the silos and try to avert WW3? USS GW? 'Adeeba deeba, that's all folks'. To busy doing coke and helping daddy's politcal career to finish his commitment. What a great guy. Little shill. I have about as much respect for W as the mold that keeps coming back in my shower no matter how much bleach I sray on it.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This shows something of the exact opposite of the above map.

www.navy.mil...

4 seem to be in the Pacific Ocean. Probably making sure that China doesnt make a move while our ground forces are busy in the ME. Especially with the current questioning of their military actions as far as movement, preparedness/mobilization, rapid modernization.

Wow this went into a bash the pres thread.

I dont see any naval vessel, including tug boats, being named after anyone on this board. You may not like GHWB, Clinton or GW but they have served in our highest office.

I dont expect to see a Clinton naval ship but I wouldnt be surprised to see it just because he was a president. He was arguably, not even close to an ally of the military and I would imagine that many in the navy would be opposed to a ship being named after him just because of his lack of reaction to the USS Cole bombing.
I really dont like how GW has used the military but I would say he has been somewhat more liked by them. hes increased spending instead of cutting it like his pedecessor.

Thats all I'm going to say about the presidents in this thread. Its about carriers.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
This shows something of the exact opposite of the above map.

www.navy.mil...

4 seem to be in the Pacific Ocean. Probably making sure that China doesnt make a move while our ground forces are busy in the ME. Especially with the current questioning of their military actions as far as movement, preparedness/mobilization, rapid modernization.



The four carriers in the Pacific are probably doing routine underway operations, i.e. carrier quals, training, and workups to deployment. Each ship is alotted 28 days per quarter to be underway for training, unless under specific deployment orders.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
They're (carriers) not going to be able to take out those 1600 missiles before many of them come crashing down on US bases in Iraq messing up the place and doing some very expensive damage..and those carriers can not approach the Persian gulf w/o being blown away by anti-ship missiles which means they will have to fly long sorties to get to Iran and provide cover for US personell in Iraq..real war will be much more difficult than you think.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
let's just say the public does not know the actual location of these battle groups (supposedly 4 American already stationed & 1 UK carrier group heading for the Persin Gulf)

bit the fly-in-the-ointment is that .... it's rumored that Iran's has
'exocet missiles' and next generation anti-ship, surface skimming missiles,
on hundreds of mobile (jeep like) launchers....ready to fire ! by their revolutionary guard,

that could spell the Doom of the U.S. naval force deployed to 'take care of'
the Up-Start nation of Iran/Persia....determined to join the 21st century
and have safe nuclear power to make electricity



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Hello, they have more than exocet; they even have some Russian Sunburns that they purchased off the Chinese after the Chinese upgraded some of their arsenals to Sizzlers..and they have advanced domestically russian, and chinese manufactured anti-ship missiles..including many that break up into 2 separate missiles mid-flight..during one of their recent military parades they were showing off some of their anti-ship missiles but not the fearsome Sunburn.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pkspeaker
They're (carriers) not going to be able to take out those 1600 missiles before many of them come crashing down on US bases in Iraq messing up the place and doing some very expensive damage..and those carriers can not approach the Persian gulf w/o being blown away by anti-ship missiles which means they will have to fly long sorties to get to Iran and provide cover for US personell in Iraq..real war will be much more difficult than you think.


The Carriers can deploy aircraft from well beyond the range of any anti-ship missile and destroy it. This won't be an issue, and those will be some of the first targets hit, along with surface-to-surface pointed at Iraq, and surface-to-air to negate defenses.

In this scenario, theres 3 big groups of targets that have to be taken out by the air. This would indeed require, in my opinion, 1 carrier for each, so 3 carriers, working around the clock, with a complete assortment of guided missile cruisers and destroyers to make precision attacks on targets as well. In fact, cruise missiles alone could take out anti-ship missiles. The only reason Hezbollah got lucky with one was because Israel didn't know they even had it, was a total surprise.

I see all 3 groups getting blitzed in 12hrs time to less than 20% of original capability. Iraq may see a few missiles land, but nothing too bad. All U.S. personnel would seek shelter until those missiles had been disabled.

There'd also need to be a ground operation. Not into Iran, but to protect the border of Iraq from an Iranian ground attack. Iran's biggest asset is a ground attack in this scenario, we only have 100,000 good, ready, COMBAT soldiers to fight, alot of the others are support personnel. Iran could send in 1 million poorly equipped fighters, with directions to force themselves into Iraq via human wave tactics then seek shelter in friendly Shiite neighborhoods. Expect Basra to be a battleground. But there will not be a major infantry incursion INTO Iran. More of a "disablement" job.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
www.debka.com...

that article is only a few days old and speaks of specific navy maneuvers with carriers near the straits of hormuz.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
www.debka.com...

that article is only a few days old and speaks of specific navy maneuvers with carriers near the straits of hormuz.


Here is a second article on the same maneuvers, something is stirring out in the Persian Gulf!


U.S. Fifth Fleet in Gulf exercise for possible war in Iran



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
It's a myth that US ships can take out anti-ship missiles, the Phalanx gun they use has never worked, it didn't work recently when an Iranian manufactured anti-ship missile hit an Israeli ship off the coast of Lebanon; it didn't work with the USS Stark, it didn't work for the british in the Falklands..the only other defense American sips have against AS missiles is the RAM system; or multiple launched tiny rockets-another ineffective crap shoot; and they certainly can't survive multiple launched AS missle attacks, the Phalanx/RAM will simply overheat and/or deplete it's ammo. . If a US ship comes into range of these Iranian missiles, theres gonna be hits..and to get inside or out of the Persian Gulf, they have to come as close as 35km to the Iranian coast-forget it, they'll have to stay out and in the open sea.. Modern naval ships are designed to fight in the open sea so that AS missiles stay out of range, they are not designed to get that close to hostile land.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
War with Iran? BAD IDEA.

I don't think that country is going to take lightly to a military strike against them.

They are not Iraq. Try... Iraq x 3 + nukes.

And subtract from the US the economy and military we had before the Iraq invasion. That stuff is tied up right now....


Pray that we don't see this. And anything else you can do.


Peace.




top topics



 
2

log in

join