It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Talk about sitting ducks (all 5 of US Navy ALT Aircraft Carriers in port)....

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:07 PM

I served for 8 years Navy Intel and it has been fleet doctrine for 30 years to NEVER have more then 3 carriers in port inactive at one time but wow.... talk about a good time for a false flag action.....
edit on 27-2-2013 by strykr619 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by strykr619

If what you say about your past is true then you'd also understand that when the Soviet Union went broke their navy sat home too.

I'd take it as more of an indication the US is in worse financial condition than we're lead to believe.
edit on 27-2-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: I'm a tard

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by strykr619

I served for 8 years Navy Intel and it has been fleet doctrine for 30 years to NEVER have more then 3 carriers in port inactive at one time but wow.... talk about a good time for a false flag action.....
edit on 27-2-2013 by strykr619 because: (no reason given)

The Enterprise isn't an active carrier anymore. It is being decommissioned next month. So only 4 carriers are in port. 6 currently at sea. That is 5 more than any other country.
edit on 2/27/2013 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by strykr619

I served for 8 years Navy Intel and it has been fleet doctrine for 30 years to NEVER have more then 3 carriers in port inactive at one time but wow.... talk about a good time for a false flag action.....
edit on 27-2-2013 by strykr619 because: (no reason given)

That is one scary sight for precisely the reason you mention. I wouldn't feel real comfy in Norfolk with THAT kind of target sitting there. It's literally 50% of the United States Navy right there. What IDIOT thought that was a good idea?

* I went hunting a little and came up with news that isn't exactly any better. We have TWO..... count them.. TWO... Carriers currently at Sea by this list. One other is at Yokosuka, Japan and sitting in port there.

The Stennis and the Nimitz are both currently deployed and busy. The rest are in Maintenance (4), "Surge Ready" in port (2), (The Truman and the HW Bush) and the Washington is in Japan. Enterprise is bring stripped but I wonder....still have a reactor? That would matter as a part of the larger group if an attack happened.

Now I see why Woodward was having a fit about the Truman's status and overall Naval posture. Hmm...
edit on 27-2-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added more info

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:27 PM
A few years ago in Sept I saw everything in port...hehe

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:30 PM
This, the Woodward thing, the Palin comment...something doesn't smell good here. Either we are expecting something and need them there (bad), something is going to be staged (bad), or we are beyond wicked broke and we are just dead in the water (bad pun).

ATS is on all the pieces and I really hope that this thing just passes over, whatever it may be.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by watcher3339

What was the Palin comment? I didn't hear that one.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:49 PM
What are those other ships at the top of the photo, they look like carriers only smaller?

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:50 PM
Yep, saw the pic of the five carriers sitting at port and thought "glad I'm no where near Norfolk"! Glad hubby didn't get the job there.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by Tardacus

I believe they are amphibious assault ships.

As for an attack happening, I don't think anything will happen, but if there was going to be a false flag event or a real attack, now would be the time and Norfolk would be the place.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

There's a thread by another poster (shows under recent posts) and the comment is on Palin's FB that the Feds are stockpiling bullets (as per multiple ATS threads) because there is going to be civil unrest because we are going to default on our debt.

Strange times.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:40 PM
Before I even read the comments in the link,
I was thinking the same thing that people there said!
Didn't we learn anything from Pearl Harbor?
And after that attack, the damaged ships blocked the harbor!!!
At least in this picture these ships are all docked.

This is from the lead in sentence/link above the picture in the OP link:

The U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the ***4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.*** (Emphasis mine!)

The delay in the RCOH for the Lincoln translates into a carrier that will be undeployable for the foreseeable future. It is ‘not possible to restore,’ the carrier to active service without the $3.3 billion overhaul, Hillson said.

Under the current Continuing Resolution (CR), the Navy is $1.5 billion short on its accounts. Combined with coming sequestration in March the number grows to $9 billon for FY 2013, according to Navy documents.
The Navy had budgeted $92 million for the Lincoln refueling in its FY 2012 budget.
Each Nimitz-class carrier undergoes a refueling and complete overhaul at the halfway point in its 50-year service life.

I must be missing something. Why did they budget $92 million for refueling in 2012,
if it takes $3.3 billion for an overhaul? Unless so much was going to be allocated
for each of the 4 years of the RCOH? And just the refueling is that much?
Does that mean new fuel rods?

from Wrabbit2000's

Lincoln refueling delayed, will hurt readiness. Begins 25 month RCOH at Newport Beach, VA.
One place says 25 months, one says 4 years! All this is making my head hurt!!!

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:41 PM
There are currently 10 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 28 frigates, 3 littoral combat ships, 9 amphibious assault ships, 2 amphibious command ships, 9 amphibious transport docks, 12 dock landing ships, 53 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, 13 mine countermeasures ships, 11 patrol boats, and 1 technical research ship (military intelligence ship, the USS Pueblo, which is currently held by North Korea)

Support ships include 2 hospital ships, 4 salvage ships, 2 submarine tenders, 1 ammunition ship, 5 combat stores ships, 4 fast combat support ships, 9 dry cargo ships, 15 replenishment oilers, 4 fleet ocean tugs, 11 large harbor tugs, 4 ocean surveillance ships, 4 container ships, 16 cargo ships (used for prepositioning of Marine and Army materiel), and 7 vehicle cargo ships (also used for prepositioning) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, How is five carriers , well really four 50% of the fleet ? I think we are still safe .

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Enterprise has eight reactors and we will cut them up here at puget sound naval shipyard .

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by letseeit7

That's a pretty neat list there.... Until you conisder the fact the fighting doctrine and planning of the U.S. Navy is based around two things. Carrier Battle Groups and Submarines as near invisible as technology can make them.

A good number of ships can operate alone outside that and do .....often with a Carrier group somewhere in the neighborhood for support if needed, too. Carriers never travel alone, either. They're designed to be the center of a small armada. So as the carriers are parked, what are all the other ships doing which would normally be accompanying them?

I call that about half our Navy because like the Battleships in Dec, 1941...all lined up in a row like those Carriers there, come to think of it...........they represent far more than their mere numbers would suggest. They represent the focus and thrust of the whole Naval effort and planning.

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"

President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993
aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt

Presidents before Obama understood that very well, too. 2 deployed? Ugh.... Our whole Navy is basically in port, in one place or another.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:52 PM
They're preparing for sequestration. They've delayed Lincoln's refuel and refit, which is going to push back other refueling and refits on other ships. They've also had to delay other maintenance on other carriers because of no money. Sequestration is also added to the billions in extra repairs to other ships from collisions, fires, and various other mishaps.

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

So it's like when my boat is at the dock, and I'm ready to go fishing. Crap, no gas money

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by ibiubu

Something like that. Although in this case it takes a really really long time to fill up. Something like three years depending on how things go.

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:23 AM
I would wonder why it was necessary to bring all of them home. If memory serves, one is in for a major refit, one is in for deck repairs and another has pump issues.

Are they being readied for a single operation that may need all that fire power. I think it is either that or the Navy is broke! Could also be the Navy playing some Politics claiming to not have sufficient funding as well.

Interesting times. Reminds me of the Russian Navy post collapse of the USSR.


edit on 28/2/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:37 AM
reply to post by pheonix358

The scary version? We have an administration deliberately drawing back American power and influence with no real plan or sense of what fills the hole that leaves. It's turning isolationist in the worst ways and at the worst moment in time, IMO. The psychotic version is that they're being set up for another Pearl Harbor...only this time, the carriers don't get missed. If Japan had hit our Carriers and not just the Battleships, many things I've read have suggested the whole war could have gone differently for at least the first few years anyway. It would never have ended as quickly as it did.

I hope it's just general thumb in nether regions thinking and nothing deliberate.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in