posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:58 PM
Zaphod is absolutely correct here. This is the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit which just spent over half a year in the
Persian Gulf. They had made a port visit in Spain and were headed to Norfolk when they headed back to the coast of Israel. They are designed
specifically to carry out a small invasion and would ALSO be perfect for a rescue mission. The stated goal of this mission is rescue US citizens from
Israel in case tensions escalate.
OF COURSE they are no match for the entire Israeli Army. Do you really think we are going to fight the Israelis? But they are still the biggest Naval
force in the region, and they can carry quite a punch. Think about the weaponry they could bring to bear if they wanted (were allowed) to.
It's not just three ships. Those are just the core of the group. Also included are detroyers, a supply ship, and probably a fast attack submarine or
two. The complement varies.
The Iwo Jima is an LHD, a "Landing Helicopter Dock" ship which supports VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier as well as lots of different choppers. It's
about as big as a WW II era aircraft carrier, but it is NOT an aircraft carrier in the way we use that term today. (This can get confusing when we
talk about "carriers in the gulf.")
Yes, we do have two CVN carriers, The USS Eisenhower, and the USS Stennis, but they are in the Persian Gulf, about 1,000 miles away. They really would
do no good in this situation because they are beyond the conventional range of an F/A-18.
I've been fighting these insane "3 carriers in the Gulf" and "the Enteroprise is a false flag!" for years on ATS and this is the first time a force
has actually been turned around and re-inserted. I'll bet the guys on board those ships are seriously pissed. They were within two weeks of returning
home after a long deployment. And I'll bet they are running out of Diet Coke, too. They are going to have to get another supply ship in there pretty
quick if the group is going to stay out much longer.
edit on 11/24/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)