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.

 

US sends aircraft carrier in the middle of Iranian wargames

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Suibom1974
 



BUT, there have also been reports that these "war games" were a cover for them to prepare for mining.


That would imply they were laying anchored, stationary mines. Those are too easily dealt with given our level of technology. They will do what they did back in the 80's - wait until ships are enroute through the straits and race out in small 2-3 man boats/zodiacs and drop smaller mines bought from N. Korea, Russia, and China, or the kind they build modeled on the Chinese type. They use everything from midget-subs to barges to smuggle these in or drop them. There's a PDF called "Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz.pdf" on the Web that assesses the threat.

I think the greater danger is not in mining but in new missile systems that can attack a ship from the cover of shore. The big hurdle in stopping both of these is air cover and radar detection.

The US and Israel are hoping this actually happens, it's the excuse both countries have been itching for to go to war against Iran, and I'm sure our "diplomacy" is trying to back Iran into a corner. For all intents and purposes the US has already launched attacks against Iran (spy drones, those mysterious explosions, etc.)




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT...

Keep believing the neo-con propaganda...while we stick to facts. And let me remind you that even according to the neo-con propaganda, that's Ahmadinejad believing this... and guess what pal, Ahmadinejad doesn't control JACK in Iran, the Mullahs do.

Mossad . : Iran with nuclear weapons is not an existential threat to Israel


Oh…you mean like these religeous leaders?

Or did you mean like this guy??

YA!! That makes me feel MUCH better!!
All I hear are religeous lunatics talking about world domination and death to Jews!

Neo-Con rhetoric, huh? What do you call the rhetoric in these videos?? Let me guess….A LIE??



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by filosophia
 



A similar thing happened to bring america into war with germany. At least now the world is awake and watching their criminal acts.


The Strait of Hormuz is the only way in or out of the area. Is this not deliberate provocation by the Iranians? Iran has no special privilege to occupy or close an international waterway. 


What right does AMERICA have to the Strait? If you haven't noticed we're on the opposite side of the globe and Iran is right next to it.

And it's none of OUR business what's going on in the area. It IS Iran's business as it has extreme military and political implications for them. Jesus, these blind fascists just don't know when to stop.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You guys forgot that a chinese sub infiltrated a carrier battle group undetected?
All it would take is one torpedo and the carrier would be out of action.
The US navy is no longer all powerful and Obama will take you yanks back into another war.
China will laugh all the way to world dominance.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Sailor Sam because: spelling



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


Too bloody right. Our old strategy of dominance is quickly fading into the backdrop of history. All the countries in the world have been watching us and adapting to our military "power."

China will soon have us on our heels. Peace, anyone?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





I am free! I’ve been free my entire life.


Man I like philosophy. I have one question : how can you be free after your time ends ? (sorry if it seems a little too much fundamental . it is philosophy you know )



Have you been oppressed here in America? Do you know any American’s that have been detained without trial? Please share!!






I think that life should be a little easier there. Maybe I can put it on autopilot to get the destination.
edit on 29/12/11 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Violater1
 


With the sub on the surface, I agree.

Just a bit of chest beating.


That picture was taken years ago and does not reflect the current makeup of a Carrier Strike Group. Further, there is ALWAYS a carrier in the region, and 75% of the time there are two. The USS Abraham Lincoln is .ed that way now and either is already or soon will be on station in the same area. Since Stratfor is down my usual source of info is unavailable for the moment.

In other words, this is normal. No one needs to get their panties in a twist unless a third carrier shows up. It is theoretically possible that the Vinson could be diverted to the area. If that happens (not saying it will or is even contemplated), then it's pretty well guranteed that something is up.

A carrier has more firepower than 90% of the world's air forces. It could single-handedly gain air superiority over Iran within 24 hours. Iran is no match for a Carrier Strike Group. The "chest beating" here is being done by Iran. No carrier is going to get sunk by an old torpedo or some crazy guys in an inflatable.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
How do you figure? That would be suicide for China!!!



Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You guys forgot that a chinese sub infiltrated a carrier battle group undetected?
All it would take is one torpedo and the carrier would be out of action.
The US navy is no longer all powerful and Obama will take you yanks back into another war.
China will laugh all the way to world dominance.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Sailor Sam because: spelling



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The US has had 3 or more carriers off the coast Iran several times in the last decade and none of the times did it lead to a strike. At one point there were FIVE yes FIVE carriers and nothing happened so no need to panic if a third shows up this time.



Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Violater1
 


With the sub on the surface, I agree.

Just a bit of chest beating.


That picture was taken years ago and does not reflect the current makeup of a Carrier Strike Group. Further, there is ALWAYS a carrier in the region, and 75% of the time there are two. The USS Abraham Lincoln is .ed that way now and either is already or soon will be on station in the same area. Since Stratfor is down my usual source of info is unavailable for the moment.

In other words, this is normal. No one needs to get their panties in a twist unless a third carrier shows up. It is theoretically possible that the Vinson could be diverted to the area. If that happens (not saying it will or is even contemplated), then it's pretty well guranteed that something is up.

A carrier has more firepower than 90% of the world's air forces. It could single-handedly gain air superiority over Iran within 24 hours. Iran is no match for a Carrier Strike Group. The "chest beating" here is being done by Iran. No carrier is going to get sunk by an old torpedo or some crazy guys in an inflatable.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Stupid american navy.
they uset to play this game with the russians.
next they will ram them !



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The US has had 3 or more carriers off the coast Iran several times in the last decade and none of the times did it lead to a strike. At one point there were FIVE yes FIVE carriers and nothing happened so no need to panic if a third shows up this time.


I don't think so. We only have 11 CVN carriers and at any given time several are non-deployable and one sits near Japan for the benefit of the Chinese. Although I have not been following this week to week for decades, I don't recall any time recently when there were five carriers there. So if you could refer us to some documentation for that claim, we could certainly examine it. It strikes me that you may be calling an Amphibious Ready Group's main ship a "carrier," so perhaps we are using different definitions. I mean a "carrier" as a CVN. If we broaden the definition of "carrier" it would be easier to claim "five carriers" at once. I failed to specify specifically CVNs on my first post, so that could have led to some confusion.

It is certainly possible that there could be three as one arrives and the other leaves, but if three are actually freshly deployed and all show up there, then, yes, indeed, this is the time to pay attention. The times that we have had three CVNs deployed have, indeed, led to a strike--not on Iran, but on Iraq.

Current DOD policy is to have one Carrier Strike Group and one Amphibious Ready Group.on station in the 5th Fleet Area of Operations (AOR) at all times. 75% of the time there are to be two CVN carriers on station. This policy as started by SECDEF Gates over a year ago. At the time, the existance of two carriers in the region led to some consternation and speculation, so much so that Gates was compelled to explain it. This was in response, specifically, to Iran's posturing, BTW.

Just to provide some additional information:

An Amphibious Ready Group is centered around an LHA or LHD, which are Amphibious Assault Ships of approximately 40,000 tons displacement. They carry a contingent of Harrier VTOL jets and a wide variety of helicopters, plus a contingent of Marines (A Marine Expeditionary Unit: MEU) with various landing craft. They even carry a few M1-A1 Abrams tanks. They are capable of mounting a (very) small "invasion" of a land-based target. These ships may look like a "carrier," and, indeed, they are as big as a WWII carrier, but the Navy does not refer to them as such. There is always one in the Gulf. Any ARG has several support ships filling various roles.

A Carrier Strike Group is centered around a CVN, a nuclear powered carrier of about 100,000 tons displacement. As you can see, it is much, much larger than an LHA. It carries 80 or so F/A-18s along with support aircraft for command and control, and a few choppers. The support ships include a squadron of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers, a cruiser, a supply ship, at least one fast attack submarine, and frequently some frigates. The majority of the support ships have the Aegis Defense system. The purpose of all these support ships is to protect the carrier. In the picture above you see how they surround the carrier, though on a real deployment you would never see the sub on the surface.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
No prob-i'll dig up the articles. Here is one from just last year:

US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region


www.iraq-war.ru...



Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The US has had 3 or more carriers off the coast Iran several times in the last decade and none of the times did it lead to a strike. At one point there were FIVE yes FIVE carriers and nothing happened so no need to panic if a third shows up this time.


I don't think so. We only have 11 CVN carriers and at any given time several are non-deployable and one sits near Japan for the benefit of the Chinese. Although I have not been following this week to week for decades, I don't recall any time recently when there were five carriers there. So if you could refer us to some documentation for that claim, we could certainly examine it. It strikes me that you may be calling an Amphibious Ready Group's main ship a "carrier," so perhaps we are using different definitions. I mean a "carrier" as a CVN. If we broaden the definition of "carrier" it would be easier to claim "five carriers" at once. I failed to specify specifically CVNs on my first post, so that could have led to some confusion.

It is certainly possible that there could be three as one arrives and the other leaves, but if three are actually freshly deployed and all show up there, then, yes, indeed, this is the time to pay attention. The times that we have had three CVNs deployed have, indeed, led to a strike--not on Iran, but on Iraq.

Current DOD policy is to have one Carrier Strike Group and one Amphibious Ready Group.on station in the 5th Fleet Area of Operations (AOR) at all times. 75% of the time there are to be two CVN carriers on station. This policy as started by SECDEF Gates over a year ago. At the time, the existance of two carriers in the region led to some consternation and speculation, so much so that Gates was compelled to explain it. This was in response, specifically, to Iran's posturing, BTW.

Just to provide some additional information:

An Amphibious Ready Group is centered around an LHA or LHD, which are Amphibious Assault Ships of approximately 40,000 tons displacement. They carry a contingent of Harrier VTOL jets and a wide variety of helicopters, plus a contingent of Marines (A Marine Expeditionary Unit: MEU) with various landing craft. They even carry a few M1-A1 Abrams tanks. They are capable of mounting a (very) small "invasion" of a land-based target. These ships may look like a "carrier," and, indeed, they are as big as a WWII carrier, but the Navy does not refer to them as such. There is always one in the Gulf. Any ARG has several support ships filling various roles.

A Carrier Strike Group is centered around a CVN, a nuclear powered carrier of about 100,000 tons displacement. As you can see, it is much, much larger than an LHA. It carries 80 or so F/A-18s along with support aircraft for command and control, and a few choppers. The support ships include a squadron of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers, a cruiser, a supply ship, at least one fast attack submarine, and frequently some frigates. The majority of the support ships have the Aegis Defense system. The purpose of all these support ships is to protect the carrier. In the picture above you see how they surround the carrier, though on a real deployment you would never see the sub on the surface.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
From 2008:

www.truthinourtime.com...

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars.

The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor ('___'52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall ('___'50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
We ought to beat the # out of those iranies, that's what I feel. They are primitive and evil, and need to be taught a lesson. The US should quit playing around and get down to buissnes. I hope they take themselves out in the process.
One less Iran, iraq, usa and israel and we all have a better world



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sorgmodig
 


You fight fire with water, not more fire.

Think about the innocents that will die. This could easily be YOU if things heat up enough.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnivoxSuperfuzz
reply to post by Sorgmodig
 


You fight fire with water, not more fire.

Think about the innocents that will die. This could easily be YOU if things heat up enough.


So what? The wold is over populated. Iran is an underdeveloped country and I see no reason as to why we should allow it to exist. They make threats and they bomb innocents. It's time they learn a lesson.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sorgmodig

Originally posted by UnivoxSuperfuzz
reply to post by Sorgmodig
 


You fight fire with water, not more fire.

Think about the innocents that will die. This could easily be YOU if things heat up enough.


So what? The wold is over populated. Iran is an underdeveloped country and I see no reason as to why we should allow it to exist. They make threats and they bomb innocents. It's time they learn a lesson.


WOW,

I have no words.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sorgmodig
 


That's absurd and disgustingly violent. They probably say the same stuff about us. Iran is NOT underdeveloped. Their people are massively intelligent and deserve respect. Of course they have their religious fanatics, but so do we. I might bring up the point that not one president has NOT been Christian? How hypocritical can you be? Your actions affect other people.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Persia has a great history and the Iranian people are good. Its the idiot Mullahs who have been in power the last 30 years that are bad. Not the Iranians themselves.


Originally posted by Sorgmodig

Originally posted by UnivoxSuperfuzz
reply to post by Sorgmodig
 


You fight fire with water, not more fire.

Think about the innocents that will die. This could easily be YOU if things heat up enough.


So what? The wold is over populated. Iran is an underdeveloped country and I see no reason as to why we should allow it to exist. They make threats and they bomb innocents. It's time they learn a lesson.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Thanks for both posts! I just managed to erase my first reply, so this is a second attempt.

The first post says in the title that "up to 4" additional carriers would be sent, but this never happened. Only two are mentioned in the body of the article. This happened about a year ago and essentially verifies what I posted earlier on the 75% plan introduced by Gates. And, the actual reference is debka. This is an Israeli news organization that tends to hype stuff up. For example, last year they claimed there was a massive build up of a "destroyer fleet" in the Indian Ocean. That was totally made up. I discussed the matter with a rep from stratfor.com who told me they never use debka as a source.

The second article does a pretty good job of detail, but it's large on speculation. The deployment they mentioned never happened. They even said this huge fleet's purpose was to blockade Iran. That, of course, never happened either. They've made some mistakes in their listings and I'm afraid their political agenda is obvious. The author will say stuff like, "And likely to join the battle are" and he lists a few more ships. There was no battle. However, they do prove the point that the word "carrier" is loosely applied, just as we suspected. A Navy person would never call and LHA a "carrier," because of the potential misunderstanding. Even though an LHA looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the Navy considers them two different birds entirely.

As you may have heard, stratfor was hacked and is now offline. Several thousand subscriber names, emails, passwords, and credit cards were exposed (including mine, and yes, I am very angry at their ineptitude.) But, unfortunately, I'm flying a bit handicapped right now because I don't have the historical data available to me. Of course, NOW is when I want it, not last month when nothing is happening. Bottom line is I have to wait until they return before I can get any more really good information out there.

The following is old information, but it does detail our Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups and may serve to show you a typical week in the Navy vis-a-vis what ships can be deployed at once. My intent is to show how difficult it would be to get X number of CVNs in one oplace at one time. Once again, this is NOT current information (it's about ten months old), but note the number of undeployable ships, which is typical.

CVN-65 Enterprise is in the Med.
CVN-68 Nimitz is now in Bremerton, PSNS for scheduled maintenance.
CVN-69 Eisenhower is home at Norfolk and nondeployable
CVN-70 Vinson is off in the Arabian Gulf
CVN-71 Roosevelt is home at Norfolk and nondeployable, undergoing refueling.
CVN-72 Lincoln is in the Persian Gulf
CVN-73 Washington is cruising in port in Japan
CVN-74 Stennis is in Bremerton/Kitsap and is nondeployable
CVN-75 Truman is home at Norfolk
CVN-76 Reagan is home at San Diego having just completed what the Vinson is doing now.
CVN-77 GHW Bush is underway off the East Coast.

LHA-4 Nassau is home at Norfolk - decommissioning is March 31, 2011
LHA-5 Pelelieu is at Pearl Harbor
LHD-1 Wasp is home at Norfolk and undeployable
LHD-2 Essex is in the Yellow Sea alongside the CVN Washington.
LHD-3 Kearsarge is in the Red Sea
LHD-4 Boxer is in the Pacific Ocean near San Diego, probably with the CVN Vinson.
LHD-5 Bataan is home at Norfolk
LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard is home at San Diego in dry dock
LHD-7 Iwo Jima is home at Norfolk.
LHD-8 Makin Island is home at San Diego

Given that stratfor is down, I may just hold off a bit here until I can get back to them, then post any new information I come across. In any case, I think we both agree that right now we don't have a big issue. Maybe later, though frankly, I hope not. I've got friends on those carriers. I'd just as soon see them home in port helping the oocal economy.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join