Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
CVN 70 Carl Vinson Joins CVN 74 Stennis In Arabian Sea, Off Straits Of Hormuz

link

Just in time for the upcoming war games with Israel. Or WWIII.

edit on 1/11/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



Iran only needs 1 per ship with these babies, Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn. Maybe lauch 2-3 / ship and its a sure hit.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
its gonna be quite a nuclear chess game.
the U.S. government is a virus.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


I think the SeaRAM + CIWS was specficially designed to handle the sunburn, but maybe not in a salvo attack. I could be wrong, as USA does tend to hype up systems and they fail miserably, case in point: the patriot missile defense in the Iraq war Part 1.

I am wondering if the SM-3 would be able to handle it well, once again in a salvo attack the carrier is dead no matter how good the missile is.

Lets say the combination system is 99% good (highly exaggerating), it will only take 200 missiles to get two to get through.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


+12 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
(cue dramatic music)

I guess they're serious. As much as I find war disgusting, if Iran decides to "throw down", they're going to get spanked.

Hard.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


While a carrier can take multiple hits, if you destroy the runway, its main weapon system is destroyed, the carriers most powerful weapon is its runway.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)






If they do manage to sink a carrier they would seal not only there fate but Syria's as well. And I would venture to say Pakistan also.





If the people have something to rally behind this will get really ugly and fast.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I heard an article today by a couple of individuals who work at the pentagon who state many in the pentagon believe or "know" that Iran does have at least three nukes. I understand it may just be propaganda, but they went on to say that the problem Iran has is the delivery system. Its easy to build nukes but its difficult to place them on warheads (which they are close to achieving within 12 months). Personally I have no problem with iran having nukes, afterall Isreal has them.

As for a delivery system, iran has the capability to deliver such nukes by hand. It would not suprise me at all if the US mainland and isreal was struck if iran is attacked.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
A little bird told me the Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is headed that way as well.

ETA:

Link


Lincoln, the flagship of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 9, is in the 7th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) as part of a deployment to the western Pacific and Indian Oceans en route to support coalition efforts in the 5th Fleet AOR.
edit on 11/1/12 by Darce because: (no reason given)


5th Fleet
edit on 11/1/12 by Darce because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The missiles won't even make it to the US carrier groups, HMS Daring is due thre any day, plus the Iranians can't missile a sub as they have no idea where it is. Tommohawk sub launched missliles will take out Iran's air defences and the bombing of Iran can begin, first strike their attack capabilities.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darce
A little bird told me the Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is headed that way as well.

ETA:

Link


Lincoln, the flagship of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 9, is in the 7th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) as part of a deployment to the western Pacific and Indian Oceans en route to support coalition efforts in the 5th Fleet AOR.
edit on 11/1/12 by Darce because: (no reason given)


If that is true, then war is days away. Why else would the US have 3 aircraft carriers in one place. That is unheard of.


+3 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


SeaRAM + CIWS will have no problem as Aegis can track 100 at a time from one ship. SeaRAM was designed for the modern missiles Russia is producing. Also protecting the Carrier is the job of every ship or sub in the battle group. If they even try to sink one, hell will be unleashed on Iran that will make both Iraq's bombings seem like nothing.

Iran would be attempting to take out a billion dollar ship with 10,000 Americans on board. If they did sink one Nukes would be the automatic response from the other Carrier commander before Obama could say shat about it. They do have that option for their own defense.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


This is one topic you are totally wrapped in. Personally before I started try to go through the Strait of Hormuz, I would bomb the piss out of any missile launch sites, any harbors, even any dock type structures that would be any where remotely close that had any type of vessel moored. I have read through your post regarding the Iranians beating the Americans soundly in naval conflict with their speed boats with rockets attached.

Funny thing about Aircraft carriers......they carry lots of jets, that have lots of laser guided bombs, that can do lots of damage.

If the American military did not learn from their stupid exercise all those years ago, then perhaps they need to get their asses handed to them.

Personally, I feel we should just leave Iran be, but our leaders have an affinity for needless war.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


We had six carriers for the first Gulf war. Three is just getting warmed up.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
one thing the iranians can be proud about is how serious the yanks are taking this matter which to me says they are not sure of the iranian's abilities and are having to just man it out via brute force and probably about 3 million dead iranian civilians by the end of it



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


Tracking is different than engaging with 100% success. Sure I can see 100 deer on a field, does that mean I can use my gun to take them all out while they are charging me?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darce
A little bird told me the Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is headed that way as well.


How long before it could arrive? It seems to be in the South China Sea currently.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I heard an article today by a couple of individuals who work at the pentagon who state many in the pentagon believe or "know" that Iran does have at least three nukes. I understand it may just be propaganda, but they went on to say that the problem Iran has is the delivery system. Its easy to build nukes but its difficult to place them on warheads (which they are close to achieving within 12 months). Personally I have no problem with iran having nukes, afterall Isreal has them.

As for a delivery system, iran has the capability to deliver such nukes by hand. It would not suprise me at all if the US mainland and isreal was struck if iran is attacked.









If they struck mainland USA. You would see huge contracts for getting out oil in contaminated areas. Because Iran and it's people would be glass.




This is the simple truth.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join