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.

 

U.S.S Enterprise heading to strait of Hormuz.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


The Kennedy hasn't even been built yet.

So how can that be in the (Persian) Gulf ??

Cosmic..




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


In the old days we had to sent out scouts to find enemy ships, or use sophisicated technology, or spy's, or just get lucky.

Now we look up the enemy web site and see where their stuff is !

I doubt it



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by schuyler
 


The Kennedy hasn't even been built yet.

So how can that be in the (Persian) Gulf ??

Cosmic..


I'm sorry. I meant the Lincoln, as my accounting below that shows. I'll edit if I still can. My mistake.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by reddwhite
 


Sry guys put up the wrong link in the OP here is theright link.
www.infowars.com...
( mods somehow my droid schitzedout on me and made 3 threads of the same post can you delete the other 2 for me sry)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by schuyler
 


In the old days we had to sent out scouts to find enemy ships, or use sophisicated technology, or spy's, or just get lucky.

Now we look up the enemy web site and see where their stuff is !

I doubt it


This is not the "old days." You can't hide an aircraft carrier. You can see a Carrier Strike Group on a satellite photo easily. This information is readily available in the public domain in many places including from the Navy itself, as a quick click on the official US Navy link I provided will show you. The Navy Times even publishes more of the whereabouts of our fleet. I absolutely guarantee you there are "spy's" (or spies) in every home port of a carrier tracking its movements precisely.

As for ATS as a reliable source, no worries. There is more disinformation on this site with regards to ship movements than anywhere else. In the past we've been told of a giant destroyer fleet in the Indian Ocean, the carrier Vinson headed to Korea to start WW III, so many carriers at once in the Arabian Gulf that you could walk to shore on them, and now the "fact" that the Enterprise is headed to the Gulf. If any foreign powers rely on ATS as a reliable source of information, they are incompetent.

It may very well be that the Enterprise will head out sometime in the future, but right now, today, the carrier is off the east Coast teaching pilots how to land.
edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I didn't bother checking out your link. Tell me do they show where submarines are ?

I'm going to guess no they don't.

Do you think if USA wanted to send a ship, a small ship, not a carrier fleet, into an area without people knowing about it, they will post the location on the website ?

I'm going to guess the same answer.

The point is there is no way that in time of war or very high state of alert the navy are going to advertise where their ships are .... they might offer false infomation though.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The Enterprise is indeed heading for the Middle East. After they finish flight training.


www.foxnews.com...





Known as the Big E, the warship and the other six ships in the carrier strike group will deploy to the Middle East in March.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by loki41872
 


I didn't realise America had 11 Carriers, thats too many.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by loki41872
 


I didn't realise America had 11 Carriers, thats too many.


We actually have 20.

11 Super-Carriers, 9 smaller Carriers.

And 3 Super-Carriers in reserve that are decommisioned, but could be activated and redeployed in 90 days.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
So...uhm....yeah. The U.S.S. Enterprise as of this very moment is sitting off of the coast by N.A.S. May Port and N.A.S. Jax. They've been flying in for the last two days directly over my house at an elevation of about 1500ft. So I dont think it is indeed headed for Hormuz as it is about to make port in Jacksonville, Fl.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Well, we DO have some Gulf news after all the US Carrier Abraham Lincoln passed through the Straits of Hormuztoday without incident. Of course, if you look at a map, it's gonna have to turn around and come back through pretty quickly because there's not a whole lot of water up there. In any case, despite Iranian threats, nothing happened. The entire Strike Group went through, which means 8-10 ships total, including one or two Los Angeles Class fast attack submarines to take care of any baby diesel subs the Iranians might have floating about.

Regarding the Enterprise, it is now undergoing COMPUTREX, which is a "Composite Unit Training Exercise," a normal thing to do prior to a deployment, so it may very well be headed to the Gulf in a few weeks. The real question here is that does this make it a REAL "third carrier" as opposed to a false run we just had last time that everyone got so excited about?

The reason I suggest this is because the Lincoln and the Vinson just arrived on station earlier this month, so if it's a "normal" rotation that means an abbreviated tour for one of the carriers. If I were to pick one to apply this to it would be the Lincoln, because although its homeport is Everett, Washington, it is scheduled to travel to the East Coast to undergo a three-year refueling cycle and change its home port. This may have been the easiest way to get it to Norfolk, with a mini-tour of the Arabian Gulf before traveling up the Suez, down the Med, and across the Atlantic to its new home.

If this is really a "third carrier" deployment then we're up for a renewed era of tensions. Somehow I doubt that it is, so I'm suspecting the scenario of chess pieces is as I've laid it out here. We'll just have to wait and see, as usual.
edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loki41872

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by loki41872
 


I didn't realise America had 11 Carriers, thats too many.


We actually have 20.

11 Super-Carriers, 9 smaller Carriers.

And 3 Super-Carriers in reserve that are decommisioned, but could be activated and redeployed in 90 days.


Correct. We ran into the "definitions" issue last time when I assumed "carrier" meant "CVN" and we had to sort it all out. In Navy parlance they are LHD's - Landing Helicopter Docks, which carry Harriers, Copters, and a bunch of Marines. But if you look at one, it surely does look like a carrier, about the size of a WW II carrier. The new LHD-type ships on the horizon will be LHAs (Landing Helicopter Assault) that will make more extensiove use of Ospreys and the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35B Lightning II, I think?) STOL version. The Makin Island, LHD-8, is in the Arabian Gulf right now.

11 carriers is hardly "too many." Right now four of the CVNs are "non-deployable." They could not be rushed to sea because they have them all taken apart. So, right now today, we only have 7 deployable carriers and 4 of them are underway. They really can't easily stay out for more than six months, so you see the problem. It's a pretty tight fit.

The only carrier I see that could possible be revived is the Kitty Hawk. here's the status of the decommissioned carriers that are still floating. (Well, except for America, that has been sunk):

CV-59 Forrestal (55), decom 1993, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-60 Saratoga (56), decom 1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-61 Ranger (57), decom 1993. Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or museum
CV-62 Independence (59), decom 1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (61), decom 2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation (61), decom 2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-66 America (65), decom 1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy (68), decom 2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold

edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by schuyler
 


I didn't bother checking out your link. Tell me do they show where submarines are ?

I'm going to guess no they don't.


Not a chance. They don't call it the Silent Servive for nuthin!
ESPECIALLY the Tridents. We should talk about that whole issue sometime.


Do you think if USA wanted to send a ship, a small ship, not a carrier fleet, into an area without people knowing about it, they will post the location on the website ?

I'm going to guess the same answer.


The closest I've seen the Navy come to advertising the presence of ships is by "Area of responsibility," as you can see by the official link I provided. They'll tell you precisely how many ships are deployed at any given time, but not their exact location UNLESS they're at home port where it's obvious. They also discourage us (as in those of us who live in close proximity to Navy deployments) from announcing arrival and departure times. Frequently, those times, when announced, turn out to be "wrong." For carriers, it's kind of butt-obvious because you can't move a 100,000 ton carrier into port any time you want. It's got to be at high tide. For Tridents, nobody knows anything unless they see them depart. (I passed up a beautiful picture of a Trident leaving Hood Canal yesterday because they wanted a fortune for it in a silent auction for the Rotary Club.It was titled. "Heading Out.")

The issue is important because the Russians or the Chinese will station a "fishing boat" in international waters (perfectly legal) off the coast of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and try to listen for a Trident leaving port. As I understand it (and I don't know for certain), no one has been able to track a Trident, ever. They will run from a Canadian Coast Guard cutter just for the exercise. And there are those who say that this is one reason the Soviets cried Uncle for the Cold War. They could not find the Tridents. That may be bravado, but that's "the word" on the streets.


The point is there is no way that in time of war or very high state of alert the navy are going to advertise where their ships are .... they might offer false infomation though.


Absolutely agree 100%. That's why they aren't the only source of information. Carriers can't be hidden, so I feel safe in providing that kind of information that everyone else in the world who wants to know does already. It ain't secret. As far as the Tridents? No one really talks about them. They could be anywhere, and that's kinda the point.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
THE Lincoln passed into the gulf today



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neotech1neothink
 


Probably not until March. And that begs the question. Our carriers are normally deployed to the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility, which includes the East coast of Africa, the Arabian Sea, and even parts of the Indian Ocean. AFAIK they are never deployed "to the Straits of Hormuz." In any case, the Lincoln sailed through there today without incident.

Edit: I see. This is just a little joke on your part. You have no substantive information for us. Ha ha.
edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join