News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Third Carrier Group to the Persian Gulf

Started by Alcibiades, January 30, 2012, 09:18:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

CountDeMoney

#15
January 30, 2012, 01:10:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2012, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
QuoteYet never has the US had a total of three aircraft carrier groups in the vicinity, always topping out at 2 in the Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet, most
recently these being the CVN-70 Vinson and CVN-72 Lincoln, with a third boat present merely until a rotation in or out of the theater of operations
was complete.
We had three conducting air operations during GW1.
Were those all in the Gulf?  I was under the impression that one of those was in the Med or the Red Sea.  Or maybe that was just Wisconsin.

The America, Saratoga and JFK were in the Red Sea at Yankee station; the Midway, Ranger and Roosevelt were in the Gulf at kickoff at Zulu station; America joined in the Gulf at the start of the ground ops.

Warspite

#16
January 30, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
It's been too long since I've seen night vision TV footage with tracer fire criss crossing the sky. I hope the bombing of Iran commences shortly.
" SIR – I must commend you on some of your recent obituaries. I was delighted to read of the deaths of Foday Sankoh (August 9th), and Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 26th). Do you take requests? "

OVO JE SRBIJA
BUDALO, OVO JE POSTA

The Minsky Moment

#17
January 30, 2012, 04:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2012, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 30, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
Question to the naval buffs - isn't a carrier group kinda hampered in the bathtub that is the Persian Gulf? And a bit of a sitting duck?

I don't like the concept.  Neither did the Pentagon until '91.

And let's say for the sake of argument the risks can be controlled.
What's the point of doing it anyway, other than to pre-empt attacks from that Weapon of Horse's Ass Destruction, the loud mouth of Newt Gingrich?
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Siege

#18
January 30, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
What? Is there a war coming up?



"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

Neil

#19
January 30, 2012, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 30, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
What? Is there a war coming up?
No.  The US isn't going to get into a war that it can't win.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Razgovory

#20
January 30, 2012, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 30, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
What? Is there a war coming up?

Probably.  But likely an air war.  I honestly think that the situation will degrade into overt violence.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Richard Hakluyt

#21
January 31, 2012, 02:41:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2012, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 30, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
What? Is there a war coming up?
No.  The US isn't going to get into a war that it can't win.

I dunno......... :hmm:...........3rd time lucky  :yeah:

Valdemar

#22
January 31, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Just a question, I noticed by accident that a number of new carriers are named after former presidents, including living ones.

Why did they skip Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Was that by choice, because the declined the honour, some political thing or what?

V

CountDeMoney

#23
January 31, 2012, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on January 31, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Just a question, I noticed by accident that a number of new carriers are named after former presidents, including living ones.

Why did they skip Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Was that by choice, because the declined the honour, some political thing or what?

V

The Dept of the Navy makes the decision on the names, IIRC.  Personally, I still think it's in poor taste to name ships after living presidents, but it also has to be appropriate.

Jimmy Carter, the only President that was a submariner, has a fine submersible named after him.  Poppy Bush was a naval avy-ate-tor during WW2 catching ack-ack from the Nips, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest living president of all time!

jimmy olsen

#24
January 31, 2012, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on January 31, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Just a question, I noticed by accident that a number of new carriers are named after former presidents, including living ones.

Why did they skip Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Was that by choice, because the declined the honour, some political thing or what?

V
Carter has a submarine named after him IIRC.

He was in Subs in the navy. Clinton dodged the draft, so I doubt he'll get a carrier named after him.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

CountDeMoney

#25
January 31, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2012, 11:09:18 AM
Clinton dodged the draft, so I doubt he'll get a carrier named after him.

Right, and Reagan's service in the Navy was so pivotal at Santa Cruz.

Admiral Yi

#26
January 31, 2012, 12:28:09 PM
Dutch bought lots of toys for the military and Bubba didn't.  That's the main driver.

Sheilbh

#27
January 31, 2012, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2012, 11:08:39 AM
The Dept of the Navy makes the decision on the names, IIRC.  Personally, I still think it's in poor taste to name ships after living presidents, but it also has to be appropriate. Nips, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest living president of all time!
Agreed.  I think it should be dead +100 years from office.  That way you'd be about to commission the USS Theodore Roosevelt, for example.  Or USS William Taft if you were that way inclined :mellow:
Let's bomb Russia!

The Minsky Moment

#28
January 31, 2012, 12:34:08 PM
Regan's name should go to a very expensive high-tech missile defense system that doesn't work.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

CountDeMoney

#29
January 31, 2012, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2012, 12:30:18 PM
Or USS William Taft if you were that way inclined :mellow:

Modern Republicans would axe that in a minute.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions