It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)