It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM

Originally posted by maestromason
reply to post by EyesWideShut

Please invite me to your thread about THE_PROFESSIONAL as well.

The more exposure we put on these frauds/mis-info agents the better then we can work our way down the ladder.

Careful, guys. Although I agree with you that this guy shows no evidence of knowing what he is talking about, I don't think you can go start a thread with him as the subject. We can get away with a few snide remarks about other members once in awhile, but I'm pretty sure ganging up on someone is against T&C. I think you have to pick a subject, not a person. Just my opinion.....
edit on 1/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:47 PM
it's a warm winter in the US, which should drive inventories up and prices down


there suddently is lots of sabre rattling in the mid east, causing commodities speculators to panic and cry about threats to future production/supply, and raising prices

why am I not shocked ?

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM
X 10000!!!

I agreed with you whole heartedly the first time. Unfortunately there are FAR more warmongers on this site who defy logic and common sense. The US isnt even sending the other carriers through Hormuz....they are sitting there in the Arabian Sea instead to keep from further provoking Iran.

Originally posted by schuyler

The Stennis has LEFT the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility and is now in the 7th Fleet AOR, headed home to the West Coast. It has been replaced, as we all know, by the Vinson, which will shortly be joined by the Lincoln. This reflects the long-standing (since 2008) "1-7" policy of having two carriers in the 5th Fleet AOR 75% of the time. It's worth noting that the USS Makin Island, an LHD, is also in the 5th Fleet AOR, which is also quite normal.

So.... the so-called magic number of three CVNs in the area NEVER HAPPENED, which is basically what I told y'all on the first page of this thread. But everyone had to jump in here and argue about it, telling us all they were absolutely SURE something BIG was going down!

Six months or so from now we'll go through the same thing again, just like we did six months or so ago. Someone will get on here and proclaim, "OHMYGOD! THREE carriers in the Gulf (The Arabian Sea, actually, but why be pedantic?) This is the Magic Number. We're all gonna die. Head for the hills!"

The only other CVN underway right now is the USS Enterprise, which is in the Atlantic Ocean, very likely conducting pilot qualifications. The other seven CVNs are in port at home in the US.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:34 PM
USS Stennis has NOT left yet. And, yes, we have pics!

USS Stennis Supposedly Leaves Straits Of Hormuz, Replaced By USS Lincoln With USS Vinson Staying Put, But Not Just Yet


For those following the latest naval developments in the general Arabian Sea area and the Straits of Hormuz in particular, the latest news is that the duo of Aircraft carriers on location, as was reported last week, the USS Stennis and USS Vinson, has became a trio, with the arrival of the USS Lincoln, however, if only briefly. According to the US Navy's website, CVN 74 Stennis has left the 5th Fleet, and is now back in the 7th fleet, on its way home. Yet this is somewhat contradictory with the following picture posted on the facebook profile of one CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln (yes, faceook), which quite vividly shows CVN 74 - the same Stennis - and CVN 72, Lincoln, side by side, at least as of this morning. As such, absent further photographic evidence to the contrary, it may be the case that while the Stennis is planned to be on its way back, but in reality is still in the vicinity. Which begs the question: why three aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, and for how long?

From Lincoln's facebook profile: two aircraft carriers... caringly side by side.

edit on 1/19/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/19/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: pics

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:48 AM
If we go to war with Iran. It will be over pretty quick.

1. Before any boots hit the ground air superiority.....errr air DOMINANCE will be established.

2. Complete naval destruction of Iranian forces

3. Air strikes night and day

4. Ground force invasion. First by JSOC

5. Conventional ground forces will be deployed.

Honestly this will all happen within a month

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Americandefender
If we go to war with Iran. It will be over pretty quick.

1. Before any boots hit the ground air superiority.....errr air DOMINANCE will be established.

2. Complete naval destruction of Iranian forces

3. Air strikes night and day

4. Ground force invasion. First by JSOC

5. Conventional ground forces will be deployed.

Honestly this will all happen within a month

What about those 250.000 missiles heading towards the fleet and Israel from Iran as well as over 50.000 missiles from Hizbollah?

Sure, you can say they will first bomb the missiles sites (at least the stationary ones), but there is still Hizbollah which is only waiting the moment to fire everything they got on Israel - and THEY SURE AS HELL WILL if this imaginary "dominance" of yours happens.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

I bet there will be 3 US aircraft carriers in the Gulf till at least January 23 even if they say it has left.

On January 23, Europe will vote on the Iranian oil embargo.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
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.

I wonder what China has to say about their Oil getting cut off?
I do believe they can do one from under.

Regards, Iwinder

Now this is really interesting point, if they are really ready for taking down surnburn's from mach ~2 speed years ago with ciws and other measures like lazers, nobody knows what is the situation now, maybe they really can.

Then again 5 more years has passed from the link you provided, surely China has taken its electronic motors even further and more into silent/un-detectable modes.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by digipulse


posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:39 PM
The Stennis is, indeed, out of the Middle East. Here's a story right here. My original information that it had left came from here which is an official US Navy web site. Right now, at this very moment, it shows the Stennis in the 5th fleet AOR. When I looked last time, it had said the 7th Fleet AOR, but, indeed, as you (may be able to) see they flipped the Stennis back to the fifth fleet. It's a little disconcerting that this status page appears to be wrong, though they never said they update it hourly.

The Styennis will visit both Singapore and the Phillipines before heading back home to Bremerton in March. Interesting to note in the story that the Stennis left the same day the Kennedy arrived, thus, no overlap. Two carrier strike groups in the Arabian Sea is what we have had and continue to have. We got the dates a few hours off, but there never was a "third carrier" in the Middle East. The usual place I get ship information is from Stratfor. As you may know, they were hacked in December and their updates stopped coming. Indeed, they are down at the moment. You can give them a try here. Their stuff is free why they try to come back up and recover. Another source of information is The Navy Times though you have to be a subscriber to get to the good stuff.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:56 PM
Whilst I am against war, I say to all those concerned about Iran missiles hitting the carriers....when you have the most advanced warship in the world watching your back, which amongst it's hardware includes methods of ensuring those missiles don't get through, you have nothing to worry about.

HMS Daring (D32)

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:58 PM
Finally, stratfor pulls through, although they misplaced the USS Ronald Reagan in San Diego when iy is really in Bremerton. Here's a full accounting:

CVN-65 Enterprise is in the Atlantic off the US Coast.
CVN-68 Nimitz is now in Bremerton, PSNS, for scheduled maintenance.
CVN-69 Eisenhower is home at Norfolk.
CVN-70 Vinson is off in the Arabian Sea 5th Fleet AOR
CVN-71 Roosevelt is home at Norfolk and non-deployable, undergoing refueling.
CVN-72 Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea, 5th Fleet AOR
CVN-73 Washington is cruising in port in Yokosuka, Japan
CVN-74 Stennis is headed for Singapore, then the Phillipines in the 7th fleet AOR, then home to Bremerton
CVN-75 Truman is home at Norfolk and non-deployable.
CVN-76 Reagan is undergoing maintenance at Bremerton, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, non-deployable.
CVN-77 GHW Bush is in home port.

The above are all Carrier Strike Groups that normally travel with about 7-8 support ships including one cruiser, several destroyers, a fast attack supply ship, and a fast attack submarine. The support ships are designed to protect the carrier. A CVN is about 100,000 tons displacement and can carry approximately 85 aircraft.

Below are the Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units. The main ship here is a "baby" carrier that is about half the size or less of a CVN, about 40,000 tons displacement. It is designed to hold helicopters and Harrier VTOL jets. These guys can pull of a minor invasion, if necessary. They usually carry a handful of tanks. Marines, by and large, are light infantry.

LHA-5 Pelelieu is underway in the Pacific off the southern USA coast.
LHD-1 Wasp is home at Norfolk.
LHD-2 Essex is in home port.
LHD-3 Kearsarge is in the Atlantic Ocean conducting crew qualifications.
LHD-4 Boxer is in home port.
LHD-5 Bataan is in Rota, Spain for a scheduled port visit and headed home to Norfolk.
LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard is underway in the Pacific for Friends & Family Day (civilians on board)
LHD-7 Iwo Jima is in home port at Norfolk
LHD-8 Makin Island is in the 5th fleet AOR, reportedly near the Red Sea.

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

If they attack US it will not be with missles but with suicide bombers. One thing the US cannot stomach is casualties. That is why its new airforce planes are UCAVs with no pilots.Ever wondered why they never return to Somalia.

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by woogleuk

I thought the Type 45 missle destroyer of the Royal Navy was stealthy. With the main tower so high like a WW2 battleship everyone can see it over the horizon. Lets hope it performs and not meet up with any Exocets like HMS Sheffield in the Falklands in '82

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by seabag

How do you know its a nuclear weapons project. It could be for civilian use. They were wrong before with regards to the WMD of Iraq and they could be wrong again. How would you like some other country to come and tell you what you CAN do or CAN'T do...absurd isn't it. Look at Iraq it a better place with bombs going off every other day.

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by slanteye

HMS Sheffield was expendable, as were all the other "picket ships" which made up the English task force which journeyed so far & fought to liberate Les îles Malouines.

But at 1 billion pounds or more apiece, these Type 45's really are not expendable at all. I surely pray they do not come up against Exocets. One of it's French equivalents, Chevalier Paul, is in Limassol this weekend, my friend is on board
there's a French squadron in the eastern Med.

edit on 29-1-2012 by LeBombDiggity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:08 AM
this is going off the assumption that Iran is special for wanting nukes the way so many other nations do and have them. Who cares. They are no less dangerous than any other nation that has them. We should ban nukes all together. I can think of a couple places that need to play ball with the world about participating in inspections and accepting they have no particular right to them for defense over other nations.

edit on 29-1-2012 by casenately because: fix

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by slanteye

AFAIK it doesn't need to be stealthy, it is designed to counter pretty much anything thrown at it......on paper it is anyway.

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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)

The reason that they failed in the Iraq War 1 was because the technology was not battle tested and it has since improved very much. So I do beg to differ a bit with your assessment. I don't believe the war would be nuclear, but rather conventional weapons and then possibly neutron or ecm weapons bursts.

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:57 AM
Why do people believe that, if one of our carriers were to be sunk we would automatically launch a nuclear attack on Iran? I mean, thats a pretty crazy assumption, or is it not? If we just start lobbing nukes around, wouldn't that just start a nuclear chain-=-reaction with other Nations? Nuclear holocaust?

And sorry if someone already said this. I got to about page five, and felt like posting.

GOOD GRAVY! 22 pages holy #

edit on 20-7-2012 by AlwaysWary because: Did not realize how many pages there were.

new topics

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in