Sixth U.S. ship now in eastern Mediterranean 'as precaution'

Looks like the US now has another ship stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

news.yahoo.com...

The San Antonio transited through the Suez Canal on Thursday from the Red Sea, and received new orders on Friday to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, near the destroyers, according to defense officials. It is one of three ships that are carrying 2,200 Marines who have been on a six-month deployment in the region around the Arabian peninsula.

This ship originally had different orders, but now it's positioned near the 5 Destroyers as a 'precaution'.

The San Antonio is an amphibious transport dock ship. Wouldn't it be 'better' to have another Destroyer come in? Why do they need an 'amphibious transport dock ship', if the strike is just supposed to be just a few missiles lobbed?

reply to post by buni11687


The San Antonio class also acts as flagship for Task Forces. It fits in with the Destroyers in that role.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That means it's basically the command and control ship of those Destroyers in the area?

what are they doing? its over man!! every country dont agree with you!

reply to post by cheesy


They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Uh...I'm confused .
If this is just a very limited strike , then why do we need 6 boats in the med?
Who would sink them?

I get the feeling there is ALOT more going on than what they are telling us.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

yes! and wasting money from citizen tax..!

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

That means it's basically the command and control ship of those Destroyers in the area?

I doubt they will shift the flag for this, not enough time for all the changes to crypto, logistics, intelligence support and Command Control and Communications protocols for CTF 67.

From the article:

The San Antonio transited through the Suez Canal on Thursday from the Red Sea, and received new orders on Friday to remain in the eastern Mediterranean

I suspect the several hundred marines onboard her are more of an insurance play.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

They are protected by no less than three SSNs - and these SSNs are extraordinarily deadly. I think it is a bit stronger force than you are estimating here. Even the cruiser Moskva, with her SSN-12 Sandbox missiles would have a tough time getting even one missile into a MEZ, and would not last more than 8 minutes were a conflict to begin. That is even if there was a desire for that type of conflict, which there is not.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

They are protected by no less than three SSNs - and these SSNs are extraordinarily deadly. I think it is a bit stronger force than you are estimating here. Even the cruiser Moskva, with her SSN-12 Sandbox missiles would have a tough time getting even one missile into a MEZ, and would not last more than 8 minutes were a conflict to begin. That is even if there was a desire for that type of conflict, which there is not.

Why are we there if this is very limited and everyone else is not coming to the party.?
6 ships for 'lobbing a few missiles'?
1 or 2 maybe, but 6?

Originally posted by palmalBlue2

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

They are protected by no less than three SSNs - and these SSNs are extraordinarily deadly. I think it is a bit stronger force than you are estimating here. Even the cruiser Moskva, with her SSN-12 Sandbox missiles would have a tough time getting even one missile into a MEZ, and would not last more than 8 minutes were a conflict to begin. That is even if there was a desire for that type of conflict, which there is not.

Why are we there if this is very limited and everyone else is not coming to the party.?
6 ships for 'lobbing a few missiles'?
1 or 2 maybe, but 6?

Well a Task Group has to have a critical mass in several warfare capabilities. A tripod stands with three legs, even though one leg could hold the weight alone. Some of the ships protect the group better from an Anti-Submarine perspective, some of the ships from an Anti-Air Warfare perspective, some of the ships are better at interdicting and detecting small high speed vessels, or Naval Gunfire Support Missions. Other ships may have deception and countermeasures suites which would be critical.

The fleet forces all piece together into a complete integral capability, which two ships might not comprise.

Plus, the mission is always more than simply lobbing the missiles.

Obama --- "red line in sand if chemical weapons are used".
American allies to Obama in private "We got your back"

Smarter globalists- "Did that fool just say to the world red line in the sand if chemical weapons are used"
Obama's allies behind scenes to themselves- " we will turn up the rhetoric for war when chemical weapons are used"

Obama - " Ill lead from behind"
Allies to themselves - " we cant afford another war, and after George Bush who will believe what we say anyway"
Allies - " we call for immediate military action in Syria"
Obama - " I have ships and aircraft ready to strike Syria"
Allies- " No, we cant go along with American and Obama's wars"
Obama behind the scenes - "The allies made me look like a fool, I have to save face and attack anyway.
I was out classed and out smarted big time."
Obama- " We need to increase the budget.. The right wing want's to shut government down and make you all starve. we do not have enough money to run the government.. I mean enough money to bomb Syria".

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

The ship joins five US Navy destroyers currently in the eastern Mediterranean that have capabilities of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, which US officials have said would be the likely method of attack on Syria.

yeahh you right...!
Tomahawk for Syria!
Tomahawk for Syria!
Tomahawk for Syria!
Tomahawk for Syria!
Tomahawk for Syria!
what a mess

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by palmalBlue2

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

They are protected by no less than three SSNs - and these SSNs are extraordinarily deadly. I think it is a bit stronger force than you are estimating here. Even the cruiser Moskva, with her SSN-12 Sandbox missiles would have a tough time getting even one missile into a MEZ, and would not last more than 8 minutes were a conflict to begin. That is even if there was a desire for that type of conflict, which there is not.

Why are we there if this is very limited and everyone else is not coming to the party.?
6 ships for 'lobbing a few missiles'?
1 or 2 maybe, but 6?

Well a Task Group has to have a critical mass in several warfare capabilities. A tripod stands with three legs, even though one leg could hold the weight alone. Some of the ships protect the group better from an Anti-Submarine perspective, some of the ships from an Anti-Air Warfare perspective, some of the ships are better at interdicting and detecting small high speed vessels, or Naval Gunfire Support Missions. Other ships may have deception and countermeasures suites which would be critical.

The fleet forces all piece together into a complete integral capability, which two ships might not comprise.

Plus, the mission is always more than simply lobbing the missiles.

edit on 31-8-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

Thanks! Kinda like a schoolyard fight. 1 kid for the fight and 12 to back him up in case things go south. Makes sense.

Where or better yet why am I hearing that 'they' might try to sink our fleet? Just comment sections on various websites and this keeps coming up. I cannot imagine that anyone could surprise us in that way with all the tech and satellite tracking we have. What is the basis for that?

reply to post by palmalBlue2

Where or better yet why am I hearing that 'they' might try to sink our fleet? Just comment sections on various websites and this keeps coming up. I cannot imagine that anyone could surprise us in that way with all the tech and satellite tracking we have. What is the basis for that?

Ive heard talk about that to. I believe what they are referring to is the "possibility" that Syria "may" have some Russian anti-ship missiles. I personally don't believe they have those at the moment. I would be more worried about Syria's air defense capabilities, but then again, the US is saying they're only going to launch cruise missiles, and not an air offensive. (I wouldn't be surprised if the US decided to have a few airstrikes mixed in with the cruise missile strike though.)

ETA - Even if they do have those anti-ship missiles, do they even have the capability to use them effectively?

www.naval-technology.com...

Russia has delivered advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to Syria, which will significantly boost defence capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government.

Undisclosed American officials familiar with classified intelligence reports were quoted by the New York Times as saying that the Yakhont missiles were equipped with advanced radar for enhanced surveillance capability.

Syria received the first mobile batteries of the missile system in early 2011, while the contract involved 72 missiles, 36 launcher vehicles and support equipment, as reported by IHS Jane's.

IHS Jane's International Defense Review editor in chief Nick Brown said that the missiles have a range of about 300km, can carry a 200kg warhead and cruise at just more than 2.5 times the speed of sound.

reply to post by buni11687


Essentially yes. They usually travel with a larger amphibious assault ship that carries an MEU, but they can also travel with destroyers and act as command and control.

reply to post by buni11687


I'm not overly worried about those anti-ship missiles. I believe all the Arleigh Burke class has replaced CIWS with SeaRAM, which will be able to handle the antiship missiles. It's only been tested to date, but in testing it handled targets at the same speed as those antiship missiles, that were maneuvering, sea skimming, etc and hit every one of them.

Originally posted by cheesy

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by cheesy

 

They are waiting to strike Syria, more than likely, and then possibly all get sunk I'm guessing? I don't think this is a good tactical situation for those ships.

edit on 31-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

yes! and wasting money from citizen tax..!

That would be a lot of money wasted, Cheesy! It looks like a destroyer costs $1.8 billion to make, and there are six ships there now? Unfortunately, our debt is something like $10 trillion, so it is still a drop in the bucket (not sure how that works).

reply to post by palmalBlue2


Wow, that is a good observation, well they could be sunk by Syria, or Iran, or Russia.

It was reported that Russia has deployed warships to the Mediterranean and two Iranian ships docked at an Iranian port. So basically now we have thousands of marines on stand bye in the Mediterranean until at least September 9th?

But can anyone tell me the names of the other five ships stationed in the Mediterranean?