Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aircraft carrier off Syrias coast.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan

Anyway, Turkey and Israel are probably bricking it. Assad knows he is on the way out and he already announced his intention to burn the world down before he leaves Syria.



Did he?

Where and when please?




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I actually find it very strange that the US has only one carrier in the M.E. right now. Very strange. Surely you would want one in the Med right now to pressure Syria and deal with any potential escalations? I understand another one is on the way to replace Ike, but that still leaves a window where Syria will be thinking the US/NATO has no teeth. Maybe they're trying to lure Assad into using the chemical weapons?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Curio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 


The problem is that our operational tempo has resulted in pushing maintenance back on the ships. This results in a situation where when they do go in, they have to stay longer to get more caught up, or they all end up having to go in at the same time. They've been doing this since before 9/11, but with Iraq and Afghanistan, it's caught up to them, and now we're stuck where we only have one carrier in the region.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
I actually find it very strange that the US has only one carrier in the M.E. right now. Very strange. Surely you would want one in the Med right now to pressure Syria and deal with any potential escalations? I understand another one is on the way to replace Ike, but that still leaves a window where Syria will be thinking the US/NATO has no teeth. Maybe they're trying to lure Assad into using the chemical weapons?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Curio because: (no reason given)


Truman had propulsion issues during sea trials, so they are delayed until about March i think it is.

We have other vessels on stand by in case of escalation.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan
reply to post by schuyler
 


And a couple Russian Destroyers?


Those Russian warships 'destroyers' that were located off the Egyptian Coast and in the Eastern Mediterranean were the Smetlivy and Moskva. Both those vessels withdrew to the Aegean Sea some time ago along with the Auxiliary supply and support vessels. The Moskva is reported heading back into the Black Sea and the Smetlivy and all other Black Sea Fleet Task Force vessels will return to home port by the end of the month.

See my last post above


Black Sea Fleet flagship missile cruiser Moskva has already set a course for Sevastopol and is expected to arrive there next week. Destroyer Smetlivy is performing assigned tasks near the Crete Island, landing ships Novocherkassk and Saratov along with two auxiliary vessels are gearing up for passing Bosporus and Dardanelles straits with the view to return to home bases by the year end",
edit on 7/12/2012 by tommyjo because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Curio
 


The problem is that our operational tempo has resulted in pushing maintenance back on the ships. This results in a situation where when they do go in, they have to stay longer to get more caught up, or they all end up having to go in at the same time. They've been doing this since before 9/11, but with Iraq and Afghanistan, it's caught up to them, and now we're stuck where we only have one carrier in the region.


Don't mean to labor the point, but it still doesn't sit right with me. If there isn't another carrier available, then surely the mighty US Navy has some other floating firepower to send to the eastern Med? If I was Assad, I would be thinking - "OK, the US is just blowing hot air...". I mean, the US Navy is a pretty incredible outfit......they're seriously so stretched they can only put one carrier in the most critical region on the planet?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 


Take a look at the lists that I linked to. Look at how many are in refit and refueling. Refueling is something like a three year down time, and refit can be six months or more.

USS Nimitz - Everett for refit (behind schedule and won't be ready until sometime 2013)
USS Carl Vinson - Six Month PIA begun in August
USS Eisenhower - Returning home for flight deck resurfacing
USS Theodore Roosevelt - RCOH complete in December
USS Abraham Lincoln - RCOH begins in February
USS George Washington - Home port Yokosuka
USS John Stennis - North Arabian Sea
USS Harry S Truman - Departed Norfolk 04 Dec after quals
USS Ronald Reagan - Bremerton DPIA until Jan 2013
USS Enterprise - Inactivated
USS George HW Bush - Sea Trials after PIA completed 12/5

That leaves us 2 carriers available until Jan, when a third comes online after PIA is complete.

As for other firepower, there are LPHs available, as well as cruisers, destroyers, and subs, but nothing says you care like a CVN.
edit on 12/7/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 

Any Americans in Syria would have left already if they were going to..


Seriously? Average American in Syria will probably wait until the bombs are falling and then complain that the US Gov't didn't get them out quickly enough.

It's the same every time there's one of these international crises, people will stay until it's too late to leave and them complain that they weren't assisted.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Poster is talking about the Eisenhower, not the Iwo Jima.


Thanks for noticing.. Some posters expect people to be crazy and they miss the whole flow...
I didn't think I was too confusing, for any honest reader.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 

Any Americans in Syria would have left already if they were going to..


Seriously? Average American in Syria will probably wait until the bombs are falling and then complain that the US Gov't didn't get them out quickly enough.

It's the same every time there's one of these international crises, people will stay until it's too late to leave and them complain that they weren't assisted.



I'm American, and you are obviously not.. Americans don't stand and wait around for civil war unless they want to participate... (get it?) You must believe the news..
The type of Americans who sit around for a year in Syria with things exploding are not the same type that complain that they are not getting free stuff...

You could judge 300,000,000 people as one thing, or you could realize truth.
edit on 12/8/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
I actually find it very strange that the US has only one carrier in the M.E. right now. Very strange. Surely you would want one in the Med right now to pressure Syria and deal with any potential escalations? I understand another one is on the way to replace Ike, but that still leaves a window where Syria will be thinking the US/NATO has no teeth. Maybe they're trying to lure Assad into using the chemical weapons?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Curio because: (no reason given)


The U.S. Military is a Global Force. It can project Power to any spot on the Planet within MINUTES. U.S. Navy Subs are NEVER talked about and it is reasonable to assume there are quite a few within striking distance of Syria.

Add to this USAF B-52's...B-1B's and B-2 Stealth Bombers that can fly out of the U.S., Diego Garcia and a host of other locations. These U.S. Bombers can fly continuous to target and back to base using mid-air refueling and have huge bomb loads with a variety of Smart Munitions.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aarys
reply to post by Krono
 


Then you will have crazy Alqueda members to fight in Syria with a sh-tload of more weapons in the future. You dont want these scumbag rebels controlling chemical weapons and Nuclear weapons.


# it, lets go for a full scale war then shall we?

Queue more civilians being killed.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join