Nuke carrier leads US strike force into Syrian waters.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
This is highly presumptuos and a seemingly ignorant statement.
It is best for the us or any other navy ,not to find out the hard way
by being check mated.

Ignorant? Maybe, or maybe its because I'm a bit more informed on such topics.

Google Video Link

video.google.com...

I always find it a bit ironic and interesting that others would put such focus and emphasis on other countries, whilst ignoring the biggest one of them all. I think you hype up other countries abilities while simultaneously overlooking others. Like it or not, the US is the one not to be messed with. Check mate.

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
This is highly presumptuos and a seemingly ignorant statement.
It is best for the us or any other navy ,not to find out the hard way
by being check mated.

Ignorant? Maybe, or maybe its because I'm a bit more informed on such topics.

Google Video Link

I always find it a bit ironic and interesting that others would put such focus and emphasis on other countries, whilst ignoring the biggest one of them all. I think you hype up other countries abilities while simultaneously overlooking others. Like it or not, the US is the one not to be messed with. Check mate.

If everyone sanctions the US and halts all oil production outside of America which supplies with oil, then they'd be screwed. Britain alone would give the US a big problem and all it would take would be France to give then the sucker punch. Oh right, the nukes, no problem.

Originally posted by Krono
If everyone sanctions the US and halts all oil production outside of America which supplies with oil, then they'd be screwed. Britain alone would give the US a big problem and all it would take would be France to give then the sucker punch. Oh right, the nukes, no problem.

The US is the worlds third largest oil producer behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. By 2017, the US is expected to take the top spot. The US is absolutely a gold mine in terms of Natrual Gas, Coal, and Oil. The US has more natural gas, coal, and oil than Russia. And thanks to horizontal drilling, and other new techniques, oil shale is now recoverable.

America gets over half of its natural gas today, from wells that were dug in the past three years...in the next few years, the US will be a net exporter in natural gas to places like Europe. Also, with advancements in solar, and other alternative technologies, the US is well on its way to energy independence.

Your scenario where US allies turn on the US is not very realistic, and incredibly ill-thought out on your part. The US doesnt depend on the rest of the world like europe does. The US is by far the most self sustaining nation on the planet. It is the US that is the breadbasket of the world.

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
There's one thing I'm not sure of and I was hoping someone could clear up for me, when they say Nuke Carrier do they mean nuclear powered or it's carrying live nuclear weapons? The U.S. has got some big balls if they're bringing more nukes into the arena.

I think people are forgetting the simple fact that this carrier is basically like one giant nuke. Its basically a 4 acre nuclear powerplant.

Not technically a "giant nuke," more like a giant dirty bomb..

Relax.

The carrier just completed five months of operations in the 5th Floeet AOR (Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean) It is near the end of its deployment. It is NORMAL PROCEDURE for an East-Coast-based carrier to travel up the Suez and through the Med on its way home. The only other way home is arond the Horn of Africa, which is a lot longer. The US is operating with two carriers in the 5th Fleet AOR 3/4 of the year. With the Bush gone, that leaves the Stennis, a west coast carrier, in place. There is no relief carrier now deployed. In other words, we're down to one carrier strike group in the 5th fleet. That will remain true for at least a month.

Plus, the GHW Bush has a small problem. As the newest carrier in the fleet it has the newest technology. This includes vacuum operated heads. They don't work. When someone puts anything other than toilet paper in them, they clog up. When one clogs up, half of them clog up. It's a serious problem that is affecting readiness. All that carrier wants to do is get back to Norfolk.

ALL eleven carrier are nuclear powered. There are no "oilers" left in the fleet of carriers. (They've never been called that, but I get your drift.) That does not mean they have nuclear weapons on board. It is very unlikely. The primary job of a carrier is to put F-18s on target. It's technically possible, I suppose, but unlikely they would use an F-18 to deliver a nuclear payload. It is way too vulnerable. If the Navy wanted to do that, they would use a Trident submarine. Tridents are not part of a Carrier Strike group, but are completely independent. A Strike Group usually has one "attack" submarine with them, whose primary job is to protect the carrier from enemy subs. It's also nuclear powered, but it does not carry nuclear weapons.

There is NO WAY a carrier strike group is "anchored" off of Syria. They don't "anchor." They move. Maybe around in circles, but they do move.

We will know by Wednesday whether the GHW Bush is still off Syria, or whether it is vhugging West down the Med on its way home, which is the most likely scenario.

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by Krono
If everyone sanctions the US and halts all oil production outside of America which supplies with oil, then they'd be screwed. Britain alone would give the US a big problem and all it would take would be France to give then the sucker punch. Oh right, the nukes, no problem.

The US is the worlds third largest oil producer behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. By 2017, the US is expected to take the top spot. The US is absolutely a gold mine in terms of Natrual Gas, Coal, and Oil. The US has more natural gas, coal, and oil than Russia. And thanks to horizontal drilling, and other new techniques, oil shale is now recoverable.

America gets over half of its natural gas today, from wells that were dug in the past three years...in the next few years, the US will be a net exporter in natural gas to places like Europe. Also, with advancements in solar, and other alternative technologies, the US is well on its way to energy independence.

Your scenario where US allies turn on the US is not very realistic, and incredibly ill-thought out on your part. The US doesnt depend on the rest of the world like europe does. The US is by far the most self sustaining nation on the planet. It is the US that is the breadbasket of the world.

edit on 27-11-2011 by xlb40 because: (no reason given)

Right so youve solved the oil bit. But still not the military problem. America stick their noses in so many countries issues, I think it's safe to say most countries would strike America, please don't go saying America would win the war just cause they have nukes.

But luckily for America, NATO wouldn't turn on them and never will unless America declare war on them.

It's not a "Nuke" carrier, as in weapon carrier.. It's a Nuclear Ship, which means it runs on Nuclear power.

Originally posted by Krono
Right so youve solved the oil bit. But still not the military problem. America stick their noses in so many countries issues, I think it's safe to say most countries would strike America, please don't go saying America would win the war just cause they have nukes.

But luckily for America, NATO wouldn't turn on them and never will unless America declare war on them.

First off, let me start by saying that the US will never be at war with a NATO nation. However, your earlier comment got me thinking. Why do you assume that a UK/France tandem would be a "sucker punch" to the US? You do realize you are comparing two small regional powers to the worlds largest superpower, correct? France and the UK combined spend less than 1/7th of what the US spends annually on the military, and both neither have the sophistication, manpower, and logistical support, etc to ever be a serious threat to a nation like the US.

www.globalfirepower.com...

Secondly, the US is NATO. We spend 80% of the costs on NATO and not to mention all the heavy lifting is done predominantly by the US.

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by Krono
Right so youve solved the oil bit. But still not the military problem. America stick their noses in so many countries issues, I think it's safe to say most countries would strike America, please don't go saying America would win the war just cause they have nukes.

But luckily for America, NATO wouldn't turn on them and never will unless America declare war on them.

First off, let me start by saying that the US will never be at war with a NATO nation. However, your earlier comment got me thinking. Why do you assume that a UK/France tandem would be a "sucker punch" to the US? You do realize you are comparing two small regional powers to the worlds largest superpower, correct? France and the UK combined spend less than 1/7th of what the US spends annually on the military, and both neither have the sophistication, manpower, and logistical support, etc to ever be a serious threat to a nation like the US.

www.globalfirepower.com...

Secondly, the US is NATO. We spend 80% of the costs on NATO and not to mention all the heavy lifting is done predominantly by the US.

edit on 27-11-2011 by xlb40 because: (no reason given)

So naive, spending power doesn't mean much, we could spend more on our defence if we wanted to. All I'm trying to say is, dont under estimate the UK, not saying you are. I didn't say NATO would turn on the US and I'm aware of how big a part the States play in NATO.

And with what I was saying please don't take it the wrong way, I'm not slagging of the American army. Just get fed up of people thinking America have the best army and are world beaters. No they are not, just well equipped with a decent size. But it's getting reduced.

I genuinely am glad us and you lot have an uncanny alliance.

Originally posted by Krono

So naive, spending power doesn't mean much, we could spend more on our defence if we wanted to.

Naive? How so? Have you read any of my posts in this thread besides the ones that have been addressed to you?

I agree that there is more to defense than just money. However, the US is the worlds leading innovator in a plethora of areas. America is known for ingenuity. It is one of our strongest advantages that we have. It should also be noted that the worlds largest defense contractors are American. Now, why is this worth a mention? Because of the above statement. The US military R&D budget alone is $80+ billion (which is larger than the entire UK budget). So yes, and no to your initial statement. It make a difference when you have proven defense contractors in collaboration with some of the worlds brightest minds.

And by "more", are you insinuating that you could spend more than the US? Please clarify.

All I'm trying to say is, dont under estimate the UK, not saying you are. I didn't say NATO would turn on the US and I'm aware of how big a part the States play in NATO.

Fair enough.

And with what I was saying please don't take it the wrong way, I'm not slagging of the American army. Just get fed up of people thinking America have the best army and are world beaters. No they are not, just well equipped with a decent size. But it's getting reduced.

I understand such frustrations. However, Americans do typically hold the US military in high regard. It is a source of pride, and as such you will have those blind flag waving individuals who make a mockery of the general populace to outside viewers. However, it should be noted that nothing of great importance is being "reduced" and that cancellations of certain programs are not taking place. It should also be said that the US military budget could stand to be trimmed somewhat. I don't believe in endless spending and endless conflicts that drain resources...And in terms of conventional raw power, the US military is hands down the "best".

I genuinely am glad us and you lot have an uncanny alliance.

Ditto.

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


You mean it would best for America not to mess with Russias Navy

The US has 50 nuclear powered subs..russia has 6. The US has 12 super carriers...Russia has 0. From the Aegis destroyers, the refurbished ohio class attack subs, and the new virginia class attack subs, Russia wouldn't stand a chance. in fact, you could take all the navies in the world, and they would not equal the size and sophistication of the USN.

You need to check your sources again Russia has about 40 active nuclear subs at this time.

10 nuclear-powered strategic submarines, and over 30 nuclear-powered attack submarines,
en.rian.ru...

Originally posted by ANNED
You need to check your sources again Russia has about 40 active nuclear subs at this time.

10 nuclear-powered strategic submarines, and over 30 nuclear-powered attack submarines,
en.rian.ru...

It seems I quoted the wrong country. China has 6. But your source is not right. Russia has about 40 nuclear subs, of those, only 20 are active. And many of them are soviet era. Which means they are outdated and in the process of being retired. I should also add that the Russian navy is incredibly underfunded.

Originally posted by schuyler

We will know by Wednesday whether the GHW Bush is still off Syria, or whether it is vhugging West down the Med on its way home, which is the most likely scenario.

It is not off Syria. As I said, I was on it Friday night, in the port of Marseille. My husband spent all of yesterday on it, still in Marseille. It is still there this morning.

Originally posted by schuyler
Relax.
Plus, the GHW Bush has a small problem. As the newest carrier in the fleet it has the newest technology. This includes vacuum operated heads. They don't work. When someone puts anything other than toilet paper in them, they clog up. When one clogs up, half of them clog up. It's a serious problem that is affecting readiness. All that carrier wants to do is get back to Norfolk.

Lol. I would have thought that, The readiness at any given moment is supposed to be classified info.

We will know by Wednesday whether the GHW Bush is still off Syria, or whether it is vhugging West down the Med on its way home, which is the most likely scenario.

Heck any Shipyard around in the med ports can fix the toilets.

reply to post by Bluesma


You know where the Bush is, I know (thanks to you) where the Bush is, but, since it would ruin these guys entire debate, I think they choose to ignore where the Bush is.

If the title of this thread WAS true, I have to wonder why so many people think that it is an indicator of war? Syria has internal political problems right now and the primary objective of any US carrier would be the protection of US citizens and embassy personel while they were being evacuated. As far as the Russian Navy is concerned, I'm pretty sure that they have the same objective as the US Navy.

Why are some people here so anxious for a war? In the 80's when the Cold War was running fairly hot, we pulled into Sicily while a Soviet cruiser was in port. There was no problem with the Soviet sailors, as a matter of fact there was an entire group of them at an outdoor cafe, pooling their money to buy a pitcher of beer. We bought them about 20 pitchers. I still have a hat that one of them gave me.

reply to post by Bluesma


Thanks for the pics. Almost skipped a beat. You are a pretty lass.
Must have been terribly noisy in the hangar.
Just wondering, if I may, in what capacity did you board the carrier,
As I would Imagine you would need some security clearance of sorts.

Keep in mind that this ship differentiate from other ships in the Nimitz class.

1) New hull design features include a new propeller design, a new bulbous bow design that provides more buoyancy to the forward end of the ship and improves hull efficiency, curved flight deck edges to reduce radar signature, a new underwater hull-coating system, deck covering modernized to reduce ship weight by 100 tons, low Solar Absorptive and Anti-Stain Paint, and a redesigned hangar bay that has less clutter.

2) Bush is the second carrier to have a modernized island, which includes a new radar tower (enclosed to reduce radar signature), navigation system upgrades, communication systems enhancements, and transparent armor windows. The island is smaller and has been repositioned further aft to improve flight deck access and reduce signature and electronic self-interference.

3) New air operations design features include an updated aviation-fuel storage and distribution system, semi-automated refueling and servicing with new deck locations to provide faster, more efficient aircraft pit stops, requiring fewer people, modernized aircraft launch and recovery equipment, and redesigned jet blast deflectors.

4) Environmental upgrades have also been designed into the ship, including a vacuum collection/marine sanitation device (VC/MSD), a new marine sewage system that uses fresh water in lieu of sea water for lower maintenance costs. Many older ships in the U.S. Navy utilize a gravity-driven collection holding and transfer (CHT) system to handle sewage waste. Newer US Navy ships, including now CVN-77, collect sewage waste by vacuum, allowing for greater flexibility in piping installation, smaller pipe sizes overall and reducing water consumption. The collection tanks of Bush were modified to accommodate both the VCHT (Vacuum CHT) equipment and the elements of a marine sanitization device to treat the waste prior to discharge. Bush is the first and only aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy to combine the two technologies.
This new VC/MSD driven waste management system has, however, not been without problems. Reports began surfacing immediately after delivery in May of 2009 of issues with the ships toilet system. As of November, 2011, the entire system has gone down at least twice, rendering all 423 commodes in the ship's 130 heads inoperable, with many more incidents that have rendered either half of the ship, or sections of the ship, without operating sanitary facilities. In one ship-wide incident, a repair crew spent 35 non-stop hours attempting to return the system to working order. The system is said to suffer breakdowns when inappropriate materials such as feminine hygiene products are flushed down the toliets.

5) New electronics and communications technology, space rearrangement, operational procedure changes, advanced sensor technologies and maintenance systems have been incorporated to reduce manning costs. A new zonal electrical distribution system will keep problems from affecting other parts of the ship. Automated material movement devices, semi-autonomous, gravity compensated weapons handling devices, damage control automation systems and components have also been installed. Medical and dental equipment have been upgraded, integrated display screens in Damage Control Central have been modernized to improve data integration and display, and equipment in general shops has been modernized to improve productivity.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Thanks for the pics. Almost skipped a beat. You are a pretty lass.
Must have been terribly noisy in the hangar.
Just wondering, if I may, in what capacity did you board the carrier,
As I would Imagine you would need some security clearance of sorts.

Thank you, that is kind of you to say.

Actually, I was invited to a reception the evening of their arrival. They had the hangar decorated beautifully, had tons of great food, and many CO's got up to speak and even in french (some had to learn it beforehand phonetically). It was a great evening, and we were given tours of the ship. I cannot show pictures I took in certain areas, some we are not even allowed to photo at all. My husband went on a more in depth tour Sunday, in which he wasn't even allowed to bring his phone.
We are often invited to these things when american carriers come in because my husband is part of an association of naval aviation supporters and collectors, and just has a lot of friends who are pilots.
So we're not anyone important really.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by schuyler

We will know by Wednesday whether the GHW Bush is still off Syria, or whether it is vhugging West down the Med on its way home, which is the most likely scenario.

It is not off Syria. As I said, I was on it Friday night, in the port of Marseille. My husband spent all of yesterday on it, still in Marseille. It is still there this morning.

Well, there you have it. It's on its way home. Guaranteed. Hope you didn't have to use the toilets.

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

In a huge superpower war, none of that matters. the losing side
will throw nukes.

You're talking about Israel, which isn't a superpower and yet has nukes.

An actual "superpower nation" will not lose a war until years of fighting have passed, and that's plenty of time to prevent the possibility of nuclear warfare.

Israel is the instigator behind much of these problems, and when they finally get bombed back to the stone age, I'm sure they WILL fire off their nukes. A war against Israel would end very quickly, as they are not prepared to really defend themselves on their own. This leaves one to wonder why they are so hot-headed in demanding attacks on other nations at all.

The USA is relatively safe, far from the middle-eastern conflict.

If world war breaks out, I'll enlist to serve my country. But I'll never take up arms to defend Israel, a parasitical nation whose hostility towards their neighbors has escalated this situation to where it is today.

Who knows though? Maybe all eyes will turn towards Israel at a crucial moment, and finally catch them in the act of sabotaging an ally in an effort to further propel a war agenda? Maybe we could finally have "world peace" then. When even politicians will be afraid to ignore the crimes Israel has committed, fearing being lynched by their non-JDL constituents.

Anyone else curious why Israel and the Jewish people even need the JDL and the JIDF? I don't really see any other nation or cultural people having this type of precedent set in order to "defend" their own. Seems like an effort to defend any action Israel takes, no matter how devious or illegal.

I am curious in asking the ATS moderators just how often they are bombarded with JIDF members, demanding the culling of any and all posts or topics that question the actions of Israel.

Perhaps we should start a thread with this very question?