US Navy pulls two aircraft carriers from Syria shores

Originally posted by schuyler
Excuse me. The USS Eisenhower is being set home from the Persian Gulf EARLY to have repairs done on its flight deck (it gets re-surfaced.) The Eisenhower was SUPPOSED to stay in the Gulf another couple of months, but problems with one of our other carriers now in home port forced the Eisenhower to come home early so that it can re-deploy in a couple of months. It was cited as "off the coast of Turkey" because it had the audacity to go through the Suez Canal on its way across the mediterranean and into the Atlantic, where it has been for several days. It will be home by Christmas. This was unplanned, but it is because one of our other carrier is broken.

The USS Iwo Jima, which is actually an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), not a carrier like a CVN, was just relieved by the USS Pelelieu in the Persian Gulf and is ALSO headed home. It hung out off the coast of Israel for a few extra weeks when Hamas was throwing rockets at Israel in case it needed to be use for evacuation purposes. It was on the way home when this happened.

So, in actuality, the US presence in the Persian Gulf is down to one carrier, the USS Stennis, and one LHD, the USS Pelelieu, which is one CVN LESS than normal. There is now no appreciable presence in the Med save a few destroyers, which is normal. The 6th Fleet is headquartered in Naples.

No mystery at all. No build up. No draw down.

That is correct. Whomever wrote that article is a moron. They seem to forget the Navy said at the start of December the USS Eisenhower would be home. They do not know the Iwo is not a carrier. They seem to have forgotten the Iwo arrived in the region to evacuate US nationals if the conflict in Palestine heated up, and they seem to think that those ships had enough men for an invasion. The level of stupidity in that article is staggering.

Reply to post by finemanm

So leaving the region for the holidays seems unlikely? For the timing I wouldn't throw the possibility out.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Mamatus
Pulling back was the smartest move. Russia ain't gonna play games. Putin is in power for a reason. He hates the USA and it will fall on him to find a way to put us in our war mongering place.

They most like didnt move out untill we got the word they were not going to gas anyone.

Originally posted by finemanm
Just a thought... The US usually keeps two carriers in the region, and the Navy is bringing one home early, before 12/21/12 without replacing it because there is something wrong with the Nimitz, AND there is another carrier that is supposed to go back out in January???

What if they are bringing the carrier home for some other 12/21/12 - SHTF -related mission? Just a thought...

The Eisenhower will head back to the Gulf in mid-late Jan 2013, after it's flight deck repairs are finished. The Truman will then relieve the Eisenhower. And Nimitz deployment will be delayed till the summe due to issues with one of the cooling pumps.

Originally posted by bg_socalif

Originally posted by finemanm
Just a thought... The US usually keeps two carriers in the region, and the Navy is bringing one home early, before 12/21/12 without replacing it because there is something wrong with the Nimitz, AND there is another carrier that is supposed to go back out in January???

What if they are bringing the carrier home for some other 12/21/12 - SHTF -related mission? Just a thought...

The Eisenhower will head back to the Gulf in mid-late Jan 2013, after it's flight deck repairs are finished. The Truman will then relieve the Eisenhower. And Nimitz deployment will be delayed till the summe due to issues with one of the cooling pumps.

Thanks. The Nimitz is docked at Everett right now. You can bet that when the Eisenhower heads back out and enters the Med, we'll have another hysterical thread proclaiming, "There's a build-up in the Med! There's a carrier off the coast of Syria/Israel! Escalation! False Flag! Just WHY is the Eisenhower back there when it JUST LEFT LAST MONTH!! Whoa! That's not normal!! And every ship that has a helicopter landing pad will be called a "carrier."

Too late to edit above. Latest news: Eisenhower returned to Norfolk today. Next scheduled deployment back to the 5th fleet is "late February, 2013"

Source is here

Originally posted by Ben81
they were just there for the show
so Israel can stfu

US will not take part in any futur war
not with Syria or Iran
Obama would never risk any war with Russia and China
and he knows it that it would be suicidal

Obama is not Romney !

Attacking Syria or Iran wouldn't bring in the Russians or Chinese. Plus I'm pretty confident NATO can take Russia and China.

So I got a heads up on twitter from Global news that the United States will only actively operate 1 carrier in the persian gulf due to budget restraints. Is this the first step to better middle east relations, has the area calmed to the point of making this possible. Can anyone with more info give some if they have it?

1 Carrier

SaneThinking

Originally posted by jinni73
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

I can't remember all the info I was told on him. i'll go find out again but he served in pakistan for the CIA.

Your thinking of Osama, not Obama

Originally posted by Krono
Attacking Syria or Iran wouldn't bring in the Russians or Chinese. Plus I'm pretty confident NATO can take Russia and China.

:If you think NATO can avoid nuclear war then they may stand a slight chance.

Old news.

reply to post by ausername


Yeah I gave the thread a bump with new info on the carriers in my post, the ones off the coast of syria left some time ago now. New info as stated in my post is they seem to be out of money to operate two carriers in the gulf so they will only station one till the one being refurbished arrives back in february as stated above in another post.

To me it just seems odd with tensions still high, the war drums still beating, that the US would lessen there deterrent in the local area.

Sanethinking

reply to post by SaneThinking


If it was up to me, the USA would abandon the region completely, and immediately. Let them all burn, or find a path to peace on their own, this includes Israel, Syria and Iran.

I'm sure anyone would say that it's a good thing that it isn't up to me, and to that I can only say, that if the USA is drawn into a war between the above three, the war will come home...

IMO

Originally posted by SaneThinking
reply to post by ausername

 

Yeah I gave the thread a bump with new info on the carriers in my post, the ones off the coast of syria left some time ago now. New info as stated in my post is they seem to be out of money to operate two carriers in the gulf so they will only station one till the one being refurbished arrives back in february as stated above in another post.

To me it just seems odd with tensions still high, the war drums still beating, that the US would lessen there deterrent in the local area.

Sanethinking

edit on 6-2-2013 by SaneThinking because: spelling

Yeah, i just read the same thing. Alot of things in the military are being cut back due to budget issues.

www.stripes.com...


It's not odd, if there's no money for it then you can't do it unless money is reallocated from somewhere else.

It's possible the Ike may be extended over there when it returns from it's repairs.

I've been there and done that before...it sucks.

reply to post by bg_socalif


To me it kinda sounds like Panetta playing the US's bluff pull the boat out and SHTF and they go on attack to anyone who said that the US needs to cut back. It seem very politically motivated as a show that they need to keep the trillions flowing.

To me what seems odd though is never as far as I can remember do they let something as little as "money" (sarcasm) stop there warring ways, odd that they would sacrifice supposed security when thrifty has never been a word the US armed forces has ever had to deal with.

Just odd is how I see it

SaneThinking

reply to post by princeofpeace


Obama was recruited by the CIA in 1980 at the Occidental College in Los Angeles.


Obama was also a operative in Afghanistan under the Russian occupation.