Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 




Did ya ever think we might have some tech we were holding on to just for a occasion like this?


Did ya ever think that Iran might have some tech they were holding on to just ofr an occasion like this? I bet you were suprised when Iran took out the drone didnt you?

If you go back to my original thread I stated that they may be able to take out a ship, not the entire group.


Yep I am sure they will tote out some new Uber weapon just for you, like the assault bathtub with dual ores.


The scariest thing I worry about are the F-14's they could still have with working Phoenix missiles. Just because of the standoff range and closing speed of the F-14.

Hell I wish we still had a few F-14's just for fleet defense. The F-14 was still way faster than the Navy's super hornet. I would settle for F-22 engines in the Super Hornet but that would be to easy. Our dumb dumb congress would never go for that now that they have the even slower F-35 coming down the line.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by schuyler
 


Apologies. I read to page three when I went to do some research, obviously I came across the article above and thought I'd share.

But hey does it really matter.


Sorry to be snappy. I'm just a little frustrated that these threads never come to any conclusions. This one has devolved into a kind of cat fight that's not going anywhere; Besides, you were also on topic!

Someone back a few pages mentioned the Charles de Gaulle could be counted as a third carrier. There may be some truth to that. First, it's France's only carrier. Sending it there is a bit of a risk. Second, a couple of years ago the US and France conducted one of those joint training missions where the goal was to get an F/A-18 to land on the De Gaulle. Apparently it's a bit complicated because the tension of the "arresting wires" has to be set to the specs of the jet. It took them a couple of months to set up everything before a couple of F/A-18s landed to great fanfare. There's probably a YouTube on it somewhere. But anyway, bottom line is that our jets can land on their carrier, making joint missions technically feasible. Of course, the French have their own jets, but I think the idea was that this could provide an extra measure of safety in case of an emergency.

A second issue is this idea that the carriers are there simply to harrass Iran. I don't think that's exactly true. The task of the Fifth Fleet is to guarantee the flow of oil--not just to the US, but around the entire world. Our carriers have been there in a tag team relay race for decades now, but it is only recently that Iran has been blustery on its own.

And the carriers may be there for a completely different secondary mission, and that is to PROTECT Iran from Israel. It's no secret that the current administration is not a friend to Israel. The usual leftist rhetoric applies. Indeed, at least one former national security advisor is on record as saying that if the Israelis strike Iran, we should take the Israeli planes out. This is not speculation on my part, as so many of these posts are. Brzezinski said that, and you can look it up. If Bush or Reagan were president I wouldn't even bring this up, but given the circumstances I think it is worth considering.

I believe the Obama administration, and Obama himself, is perceived as weak by Middle Eastern leaders, and that is why we've seen an escalation of tensions. They don't respect Obama and think he is an amateur. Now for you Obama fans I'm not signing on to that idea because it could be a very big mistake on their part. Obama may not be very good at playing chess, but he still has the biggest pieces.

I just wanted to point out that this thing has more than a couple of players and that the dynamics going on here may be a lot more complex than we tend to think.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I think we can draw at least one conclusion from what we do know.

1) Iran has stated that the U.S. warships should not return to the strait lest they be met with some unspecified reprisal. citation
2) The U.S. has already returned two carrier groups to the straits, with at least one or more en route.

This leads me to believe that the U.S. leaders are provoking Iran to act and want a conflict to start, probably before the next election. October? Surprise?
edit on 1/11/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: minor correction
edit on 1/11/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Its more of an emergency deal to save aircraft as the French also landed aircraft on our Carriers. They first did this right before the same NATO armada was steaming to Iran but Putin called NATO's bluff and Invaded Georgia to eventually target Israel. I had nothing to do with Georgia starting trouble.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
reply to post by schuyler
 


I think we can draw at least one conclusion from what we do know.

1) Iran has stated that the U.S. warships should not return to the strait lest they be met with some unspecified reprisal. citation
2) The U.S. has already returned two carrier groups to the straits, with at least one or more en route.

This leads me to believe that the U.S. leaders are provoking Iran to act and want a conflict to start, probably before the next election. October? Surprise?


The only problem with that conclusion is that the US carrier movements are on schedule and do not represent anything out of the ordinary. My major point through this entire thread is that these carrier movements are completely normal. Also, none of these carriers will be in the Gulf in October. That's nine months from now and none of these carriers can stay in position that long. Both the Lincoln and the Vinson will be home by summer though, potentially, the Stennis could be ready to go out again. It makes no sense at all to claim that these carriers, today, represent some sort of October Surprise because there is no possible way they can still be there.

1. There have been two carriers in the Gulf 75% of the time since 2008. We're going on five years with that configuration. Clearly, having two carriers in the Gulf is not new.

2. Carriers deployed in the Gulf do so for from 5-7 months. they travel with a "fast combat support ship" which carries everything from ammunition to bacon and eggs. There are 5,000 people on the carriers and several hundred on each support ship. That's probably about 7,000 people total. They eat all the bacon and eggs over 5-7 months, so the carrier's deployment time is limited by the amount of supplies it can take with it. Besides, all these sailors have families at home, so the Navy does a relay and relieves the Groups. That way the sailors can go home and make more babies.

3. The so-called "third carrier" that everyone gets all worked up about every six months or so is the relief for the one that has been there the longest. The Stennis, CVN-74, has been on station since early September. It's in its 5th month of deployment. See above. The Lincoln is right on schedule to relieve the Stennis whereupon the Stennis will go home and maybe visit Melbourne on the way.

4. In six months or so we will all have this discussion again just like we did six months ago. I absolutely guarantee you we will have someone make a breathless new thread that says, "My God! We're about to have three carriers in the Gulf! Run for cover!" Regular as clockwork. You can go back on the ATS threads and pick them out. All we have to do is change the hull numbers and ship names and this entire thread will plug neatly into place next summer.
edit on 1/11/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
There’s quite a lot of posts here extolling the virility of the Iranian navy. 500+ carrier destroying missiles, F14s with 1970s missiles, suicide speedboats, supersonic torpedoes and much Allahu Akbar. Deep down and in the cold light of day, we all know that if it came to a tiff between Iran and the assembled US and NATO assets, the outcome would be one sided.

However, this war monger thread keeps the fantasies chugging on.

On the bright side, with the apparent increase in US naval ships the chance of being rescued from sinking Iranian vessels is significantly better.

Regards



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


Seems a third carrier is on the way.


You know, sometimes it really helps to read the thread you are posting in. A page or so ago we talked about that:

Like right here.



Well, I found ALS's reply useful. It was on topic and cited an additional source that goes toward confirming a third carrier on the way.






Maybe you could update the original to reflect the new info. If this is true it is huge and means only one thing.


Not trying to start a fight here, but I think you're confused. ALOSTSOUL posted a reply to my message with more information. How could he update the original when it was not posted by him? I suspect you're getting the reply author's mixed up.






What I said was on topic your kinda touchy. Maybe you should just lighten up a little I think I will take my flag back.
Let's please stay on topic now.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

U.S. military moves carriers to Arabian sea region, denies Iran link (Reuters)

How stupid do you think we are?

I mean, on one side you say that you are deploying carriers because of Iran's threats, then on another side, you say that there's no link to Iran...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This is simply nothing more than calling Iran's bluff.


2nd line



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


Hmmm I don't know, it take alot of time, man power and money to move three aircraft carriers. Couple this with mass build up of ground troops (and equipment) in israel and you get a pretty hairy situation.

There getting ready for an attack, I'm sure of it.

On january 23rd the European union will have voted to impose an oil embargo on Iran. When this happens Iran will have to shut the strait of hormuz. When they do the west will have to reopen it by force.

ALS



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


Hmmm I don't know, it take alot of time, man power and money to move three aircraft carriers.


Which they do every six months regardless. This is not a rushed job. The carriers were scheduled months, even years ago. It is simply their turn at bat.


Couple this with mass build up of ground troops (and equipment) in israel and you get a pretty hairy situation.


Could you expand on this a bit? I remember a thread title claiming this a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure I buy it. A massive buildup of troops cannot go unnoticed, especially in a tiny country like Israel. During the Gulf War we had the entire Third Army massed in Kuwait and the entire Second Army poised off Turkey. Plus, when you look at a map, Israel is about 1,000 miles from Iran. Putting ground troops in Israel to attack Iran doesn't make sense. It's like massing troops in London to attack Rome. So I'm wondering if this has any basis in reality, or is it another of Debkafile's phantom destroyer fleets they come up with once in awhile.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 




I'm not saying their defiantly gearing for an attack but to me the chess pieces are being readied. You only have to look at the history of the cold war to know how the true reasons behind these "exercises" and how close we came to nuclear war because of them.

ALS
edit on 11-1-2012 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This just in. It's the Vinson that is replacing the Stennis, not the Lincoln, which is what I had assumed. That means the Lincoln is, in essence, the second carrier and the Stennis should be headed back home any day now. I'll be able to confirm rhis when it happens. It might be a few days.

Thanks for the vid.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
As has already been said. There will be 3 carriers because one arrives to relieve one of the 2 that are currently there...this happens about EVERY 6 months...nothing new!!!!

And NO, these 3 carriers will not be there until next October.

Good grief do folks on here even research stuff before spouting things out?


We had SIX carriers in place for gulf war one just for reference.
edit on 11-1-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 

IF WAR WITH IRAN,NEXT> CHINA AND RUSSIA STEP IN TELLING US WE HAVE GONE TO FAR AND TO STAND DOWN,.................. ARROGANCE WEIGHS,..........BUTTONS ARE PUSHED......................................



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
LOOK ABOVE!!!!! THIS IS A CARRIER ROTATION IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!!!!!!! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Originally posted by OPUFO3257142119
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 

IF WAR WITH IRAN,NEXT> CHINA AND RUSSIA STEP IN TELLING US WE HAVE GONE TO FAR AND TO STAND DOWN,.................. ARROGANCE WEIGHS,..........BUTTONS ARE PUSHED......................................



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm glad none of you are 'ruling the world'. What, is everybody anxious to get a war going? If not, why do you keep talking about WWIII? And, why do people act like the U.S. is UNSTOPPABLE? Pah-lease. If the U.S. attacks Iran....expect a Jihad. Expect the ENTIRE middle east to unite...and attack the 'homeland'. Also, keep in mind....Obama IS a muslim....so, it's safe to say, that Obama won't attack. HOWEVER, being that Biden is V.P., IF Obama was assasinated....THEN, there's a chance that the U.S. would attack Iran....especially, if he's assasinated by...let's say...an Iranian?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 




We had SIX carriers in place for gulf war one just for reference.

And? Did the US had dozens of military bases on all sides of Iraq back then? And drones? No.

Right now, they don't need 6 carriers to attack Iran's nuclear facilities or try to take out the regime with air strikes. They need at least 2, but that's about it.

And let's mention there's one French aircraft carrier and one British destroyer and a bunch of Israeli submarines.


But I agree with you overall... this will not be war YET.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The real question is will this carrier pass through the straight of Hormuz and call Iran's bluff?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Where is the charles de gaulle? Now that thing is bad@ss too.....Is it coming to Iran?






top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join