http://www.zerohedge.com/news/third-aircraft-carrier-group-coming-iran
Quote
Third Aircraft Carrier Group Coming To Iran
For months now we have been following US naval developments and deployments in the Arabian Sea, which serve one purpose and
one purpose only - to demonstrate US military strength in the Straits of Hormuz region and to keep Iranian 'offensive passions' subdued.
Yet 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. That is about to change, and with it the prevailing price of Brent, which we are confident is about to take a new step wise price higher
as the US makes it all too clear what the endgame is, because as Naval Today reports, the "US navy to deploy third carrier group to Persian Gulf", probably
the CVN-77 George H.W. Bush which departed Norfolk two weeks ago according to the most recent naval update, or any other Norfolk-stationed
aircraft carrier: there is a wide selection to chose from. USS Abraham Lincoln had already entered the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on Jan 22. She is
escorted by a guided missile cruiser and two destroyers (USN), one British and one French warships.
Meanwhile, another US Navy's carrier strike carrier group headed by USS Carl Vinson is stationed eastward the Strait of Hormuz, in northern part of the Arabian Sea
washing southwest coast of Iran.
At present, the US has 15,000-men force deployed in Kuwait, expeditionary marine battalion, and amphibious landing group.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnavaltoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FUS-Navy-to-Deploy-Third-Carrier-Group-to-Persian-Gulf.jpg&hash=b2f4a25345763e0b968ea3a2cf388cb458dff4b7)
Welp
Good, the Arab Spring has been a disappointment as TV entertainment. Blowing Iran to shit should be more interesting. You'd have action in the Gulf along with Hezbollah and Hamas tussling with Israel.
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.
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?
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.
This won't end well, more imperial treasure pissed down the drain.
I'll hazard the Chinese will be conflicted, it'll make the 21st century, the Chinese one, sooner than they expected, but I think they'd have rather continued to build economic might rather than having to take over US so much earlier.
Death to Amerkica. :P
I pity the world that has China has the hyper-power.
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?
It would be a sitting duck if the country you were targetting had any anti-navy capablilities.
Thank god there is no chance even an Iranian airliner will get close to a carrier.
The Chinese built Iranian missiles will swarm all three, and the US will suffer a major setback, from which it will never recover from. Then, millions of Frogs cry out at once, as they orgasm as one.
Murderer's row 2.0? I've got a murder boner.
So we going to do this or what?
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.
I don't know many carrier groups that operate out of Wisconsin. I wonder, even if the US does get some sort of agreement out of Iran, would Congress even ratify it? Or would it be like the NK thing and the GOPtards in Congress would sabotage anything with Clinton's name on it.
It's an election year. I think we can depend on the Republicans to do their utmost to sabotage a Democratic incumbent.
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.
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.
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?
What? Is there a war coming up?
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.
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.
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:
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
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!
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.
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.
Dutch bought lots of toys for the military and Bubba didn't. That's the main driver.
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:
Regan's name should go to a very expensive high-tech missile defense system that doesn't work.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on 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.
But he did wear a uniform at least, so he's got that over Clinton.
So does that mean Bush43 gets a carrier eventually? :unsure:
Yeah probably.
Clinton should at least get a submarine like Carter.
Or maybe a cruise missile.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2012, 12:55:31 PM
Yeah probably.
Clinton should at least get a submarine like Carter.
Carter started the military expansion that Reagan gets credit for.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2012, 12:55:31 PM
Yeah probably.
Clinton should at least get a submarine like Carter.
But Carter actually served on submarines. I'm not sure where the comparison comes from...
You guys should just take the simple route and name your ships after cities like we do. -_-
Yeah we do that too. The little ships.
I think we should go with warlike adjectives. Who cares if they've been used before.
Laundry Ship Walter Mondale.
Only thing that annoys me is the carrier admirals from WWII are given names on destroyers. DDG Halsey? yuk. Give that man a CVN.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 30, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I pity the world that has China has the hyper-power.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Quote from: Kleves on January 31, 2012, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 30, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I pity the world that has China has the hyper-power.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Don't worry. The GOP isn't really big on the brains department either.
We name our larger ships after historical figures.. ofc we have a longer history to take of, and far fewer ships, so we don't get this kind of conflict :D
The 5 most recent were, Absalon, Esben Snarre, Ivar Huitfeldt, Peter Willemoes, and Niels Juel (Take that swedes, we will keep naming a ship after him in every second generation :D).
V
QuoteDUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The U.S. Navy said Monday it has deployed a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region amid rising tensions with Iran over its nuclear program.
The deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise along the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group marks only the fourth time in the past decade that the Navy has had two aircraft carriers operating at the same time in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, said Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.
The two carriers will support the American military operations in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts off Somalia's coast and in the Gulf of Aden, said Derrick-Frost.
The warships also patrol the Gulf's strategic oil routes that Iran has threatened to shut down in retaliation for economic sanctions.
The deployment of the second aircraft carrier is "routine and not specific to any threat," Derrick-Frost added. She did say how long the Navy will keep the increased military presence in region.
It was in June 2010 that the U.S. had two carriers operating in the region. Before then, the carriers were deployed in March 2003 during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and in February 2007 in support of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2012, 09:18:42 AM
Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.
Wasnt she the horny MILF in the John Candy movie Uncle Buck
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
Because they are both Democrats, dah.
I want a Rodger Young.
Quote from: Siege on April 09, 2012, 03:30:01 PM
I want a Rodger Young.
Is this some sort of gay army thing?
Quote from: Siege on April 09, 2012, 03:30:01 PM
I want a Rodger Young.
The younger the better, apparently.