USS Enterprise part of US naval exercise in Persian Gulf- something we missed

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Thanks. This can't be good, as the saying goes.

reply to post by CaptChaos


good find ..i remeber this article....the problem with the u.s. is that it thinks it is untouchable.... and the highly electronicly outfitted military does not think that a non-electronic enemy can hurt it. the u.s. military or should i say politicians are resting on the laurels of the recent past conflicts...light casualties, big show, sucsess because we say so...the eye opener will come and it will be at the expense of the troops...not the politicians

I don't understand why carriers are so vulnerable. How about a defensive missile that deploys a chainmail like net to envelope any stinger missiles as they approach. has little bomblets interspaced throughout to destroy those missiles. I know those missiles fly very fast, maybe it's just a pipe dream on my part.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

And if it was the Stennis, or the Reagan, or the Washington, or any other carrier in the fleet, then nothing would be any different. You'd still have a carrier involved, it would still be vulnerable, and people would still be saying that it's making things worse rather than better.

Just about ANY naval ship in the area could come under attack and be forced to launch an attack on Iran in self defense. In fact in a carrier battle group it's the escorts that would be launching a snap attack on Iran, which is what it would be if they came under fire. It would take time for the carrier to ready an attack. The big difference is that if it's a couple of ships, they're more likely to be overwhelmed, and can launch a smaller attack than all the escorts in a CBG.

I'm not sure why you are being so pedantic, this is a conspiracy theory site. We have a conspiracy from a few months back and I am pointing out something people missed, namely that the USS Enterprise which was the focus of the conspiracy theory is part of the recent naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz. The carriers are 'vulnerable', forgive me for trying to connect the dots on a conspiracy site!

reply to post by joe7pack


Because they're one of the few ships that it's capable to get a "mission kill" on, and knock them out of the fight, without causing major damage or sinking them. The extent of the long range weaponry on an aircraft carrier are their aircraft. If you are able to cause enough damage to the deck to damage either the catapult, arresting gear, or prevent movement of the aircraft around the deck, then all you have now is a large target floating around out there that has to be protected.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Yes it's a conspiracy site, and you have opposing view points. I'm simply saying that just because it's the Enterprise doesn't make an attack on it more or less likely. ANY carrier in that area can be hit, and any ship in that area can start an attack on Iran. If even a destroyer was hit and sunk, we would immediately retaliate against Iran, just as if a carrier was hit.

So your in the Pentagon

You have 20 years of tech that could be added to a modern carrier

Because of the budget crunch your not getting it.

So you park a few Carriers off the coast of an Enemy that would LOVE to show off by killing a few US Carriers

You WIN: The funding to build 3-4 super advanced new carriers

You Get: To Destroy Iran

You also Get: The American Public outrage over the destruction of our Carriers including one named "Enterprise" which of course will cause geek backlash


Seems like a GOOD plan IF your in the Pentagon

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Yes it's a conspiracy site, and you have opposing view points. I'm simply saying that just because it's the Enterprise doesn't make an attack on it more or less likely. ANY carrier in that area can be hit, and any ship in that area can start an attack on Iran. If even a destroyer was hit and sunk, we would immediately retaliate against Iran, just as if a carrier was hit.

Well of course, in a literal sense you are correct.

But if you were planning a false flag to start a war, you would attack the ship that is at it's career end and due for a very expensive decommission which just so happens to be this year.

Surely you accept the premise of the theory?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by joe7pack

 

Because they're one of the few ships that it's capable to get a "mission kill" on, and knock them out of the fight, without causing major damage or sinking them. The extent of the long range weaponry on an aircraft carrier are their aircraft. If you are able to cause enough damage to the deck to damage either the catapult, arresting gear, or prevent movement of the aircraft around the deck, then all you have now is a large target floating around out there that has to be protected. [/quote

I understand that, I'm just at a loss why they haven't come up with something defensive against those deadly water skimming missiles. jets at least you can track way before they can launch. But those russian made ship killers are deadly.]

reply to post by penninja


They already have the funding to build the new carriers though. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is the lead ship of the new class, that will eventually replace Enterprise, and the early Nimitz class ships. The Gerald Ford will enter service in 2015 and replaces Enterprise, the John F. Kennedy enters service in 2019 and replaces Nimitz, and CVN-80 (no name as of yet) enters service in 2025 and replaces Eisenhower.

So we are leaving military analysis to University of Chicago Professors and PBS now? From the very same article:

Rear Adm. Walter Carter, commander of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, said an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf would not make matters worse in the event of a shooting war between Israel and Iran.

“I would tell you it’s the opposite,” he said. “What we bring here is not a mission of instability. We bring here a mission of stability and security.”

The exercise you are exercised about is over in a couple of days. It's the International Mine Countermeasures Exercise 2012 (IMCMEX 12), slated from Sept. 16-27.

The Stennis (CVN-74) is headed for the area right now and should be there in a few days, after which the Enterprise will sail through the Suez Canal into the Meditteranean and then home to San Diego for decommissioning in December after which it will be made into razor blades. No museum for this ship. Its official decommissioning date is now March 15, 2012.

However, for a short period of time we will have THREE CARRIERS IN THE GULF! And if you insist on counting LHD-7 Iwo Jima as a "carrier," then it's FOUR!!!!!

Oh-My-God!!!! THREE CARRIERS. Holy Poop, Batman! It's an ESCALATION! Man the bunkers!

Of course we have to go through this hysteria every six months or so every time there's a carrier handoff in the Gulf area. Just check prior threads going back several years.

Oh, and the idea of sinking the Enterprise in the Gulf to "save money" is ludicrous. First of all, the Enterprise is taller than the Gulf is deep. That would be funny looking with its radar array sticking out of the water. And since it has a whopping eight nuclear reactors on it my guess is people would be quite anxious to get the thing salvaged. For a ship that displaces about 95,000 tons that would be quite a spectacle. And expensive.

reply to post by joe7pack


They actually have proven Aegis, and Sea RAM to be effective against sea skimmers, which is why the counter design is a faster missile. Then within a few years they'll have a counter counter, and the game goes on.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I accept the theory, I just see it as being flawed. Between the logistical problems involved (see Schuyler's post), and the fact that they could use a cruiser, destroyer, or frigate that's about to be decommissioned for the same purpose, and just as effectively, I just don't see it as being plausible.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by penninja

 

They already have the funding to build the new carriers though. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is the lead ship of the new class, that will eventually replace Enterprise, and the early Nimitz class ships. The Gerald Ford will enter service in 2015 and replaces Enterprise, the John F. Kennedy enters service in 2019 and replaces Nimitz, and CVN-80 (no name as of yet) enters service in 2025 and replaces Eisenhower.

And 4 more get's you a whole new fleet, greatly speeds production on those already planned, get's you your War and creates the sort of pro War environment 9-11 did.

Why not tempt them?

Let's also add the hope of International support.

It's the equivalent of mooning a guy you want to piss off because your an instigator, it's particularly good to be able to tell the cops "he hit me first" is it not?

Next they will have Biden visit the Enterprise, he's replaceable too

Originally posted by schuyler
So we are leaving military analysis to University of Chicago Professors and PBS now? From the very same article:

Rear Adm. Walter Carter, commander of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, said an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf would not make matters worse in the event of a shooting war between Israel and Iran.

“I would tell you it’s the opposite,” he said. “What we bring here is not a mission of instability. We bring here a mission of stability and security.”

The exercise you are exercised about is over in a couple of days. It's the International Mine Countermeasures Exercise 2012 (IMCMEX 12), slated from Sept. 16-27.

The Stennis (CVN-74) is headed for the area right now and should be there in a few days, after which the Enterprise will sail through the Suez Canal into the Meditteranean and then home to San Diego for decommissioning in December after which it will be made into razor blades. No museum for this ship. Its official decommissioning date is now March 15, 2012.

However, for a short period of time we will have THREE CARRIERS IN THE GULF! And if you insist on counting LHD-7 Iwo Jima as a "carrier," then it's FOUR!!!!!

Oh-My-God!!!! THREE CARRIERS. Holy Poop, Batman! It's an ESCALATION! Man the bunkers!

Of course we have to go through this hysteria every six months or so every time there's a carrier handoff in the Gulf area. Just check prior threads going back several years.

Oh, and the idea of sinking the Enterprise in the Gulf to "save money" is ludicrous. First of all, the Enterprise is taller than the Gulf is deep. That would be funny looking with its radar array sticking out of the water. And since it has a whopping eight nuclear reactors on it my guess is people would be quite anxious to get the thing salvaged. For a ship that displaces about 95,000 tons that would be quite a spectacle. And expensive.

John Mearsheimer knows his stuff, especially foreign policy-

en.wikipedia.org...

Given he also worked for the Brookings Institute, I actually find his comments on 'vulnerable' carriers in this exercise quite unsettling.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I accept the theory, I just see it as being flawed. Between the logistical problems involved (see Schuyler's post), and the fact that they could use a cruiser, destroyer, or frigate that's about to be decommissioned for the same purpose, and just as effectively, I just don't see it as being plausible.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion and hopefully you are correct.

The U.S.S. Enterprise looks pretty lonely up there in the Gulf for Aircraft Carriers. I thought there was a third in the neighborhood?


^^ Stratfor Naval Deployment and Fleet Disposition as of 9/12/2012.

We sure don't look like a major power on the eve of war with so many of our Carriers and Amphib ships sitting in home port either. Odd thing...but either this is all for show, or we're the most over-confident world power to start a new war in living memory. Iran could almost file a protest over the insult if this is all we figure it'll take to whip a nation of 70 million people and a couple decades to advance plan and prepare for precisely this day and this fight. Hmmmm.....

I'd also note that having ships in the Gulf, especially BIG ones like Aircraft Carriers is just stupid if war is considered imminent. Carriers are miracles of modern naval power. However, they are powerful in their element...BLUE water. Open seas...

The Gulf is just over 500 miles, north to south ...so they have room on the legs of the race track pattern but whoa.... It runs from 108 miles to 150 miles WIDE. So the U.S.S. Enterprise, if it's sailing dead center in the Gulf, will have roughly 5 minutes warning on jets coming out of Iran at mach 1. Probably plenty of time to spank that effort.......

However... The Iranians are Mass-Producing a ballistic ship-killer they affectionately named the Persian Gulf. It's described as Mach 3. So, the Enterprise has about 90 seconds warning for one of them. Still not bad and Aegis is no slouch. I can't miss the 'Mass Produce' part of that though and 185 mile range. So it can be launched from a mobile platform 120 miles inland. This Inland:



With a handy new air defense missile system probably ahead of claims and, knowing our luck in war recently, sprinkled all over those ridges and endless mountain valleys. Should be a real hoot and what can possibly go wrong?

Who needs a false flag? Just fire a bottle rocket toward the Iranian Coast and no one will care or remember who fired first within an hour.

reply to post by penninja


Because it's not like WWII, when they could turn out a few dozen escort carriers in a month, or faster. Even at war time production, you can only speed up a 100,000 ton displacement ship so much. That's why at current production times it takes almost 10 years to build one. You might be able to knock 3 years off that, but probably not much more than that.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The third is Stennis, she's still on her way to the area. She was still in WESTPAC drilling with the Reagan after Valiant Shield ended.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
John Mearsheimer knows his stuff, especially foreign policy-

en.wikipedia.org...

Given he also worked for the Brookings Institute, I actually find his comments on 'vulnerable' carriers in this exercise quite unsettling.

Unquestionably in foreign policy. In military tactics and possibilities--not so much. (He attended West Point and seved as an army officer for five years) The real point I was making (and perhaps I should have been more clear) is that the original post was selectively quoting Mearsheimer and ignoring the opposite point of view by an actual Admiral in the field. The original post is designed to creep you out and does not mention any alternative view, which there is in the very same article. In other words, it's biased.

It also leads you to a false conclusion that somehow we "missed" the fact that the Enterprise was part of the MCM exercise. This then leads, as we have seen, to the idea that the Enterprise will be used as a "false flag." None of this is true. We didn't "miss" anything. Anyone paying attention knows where the Enterprise is and also knows it's nearing the end of its deployment and service life.

So what we have here is a perfectly reasonabloe MCM exercise under the circumstances. Indeed, the military would be remiss if it did NOT plan what to do in case Iran mined the Strait, coupled it with a perfectly straightforward, time-tested deployment transition, and turned it all into a conspiracy.

And one way or another, we do this every six months. We're right on schedule.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The U.S.S. Enterprise looks pretty lonely up there in the Gulf for Aircraft Carriers. I thought there was a third in the neighborhood?

USS Eisenhower is in the neighborhood. USS Stennis is headed on over to relieve Enterprise.