the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.



AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

wrote:
Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.


There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off



AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


Rummy is a NeoKlown, and thinks he can do more with less than any
military leader in the history of mankind. He is a dangerous idiot, and
is going to get boatloads of sailors killed.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job


Define "the job"

Defendario wrote:


There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off


Back then it did not take much to nearly annhilate Iran's Navy with
the 'small' USN force that was deployed. Has there been big purchases
for naval vessels after that?

Regardless, I don't think there Navy won't pose much threat. Where
their vast experiece lies is on the ground and perhaps air war due to
the encounters with Iraq

wrote:
Defendario wrote:


There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off


Back then it did not take much to nearly annhilate Iran's Navy with
the 'small' USN force that was deployed. Has there been big purchases
for naval vessels after that?


The Iranians aren't wasting much of their resources on ships. They
aren't obligated to fight the war the way /we/ want. The Iranians have
invested in weapons technologies that will meet their strategic
objectives, ie control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.

In this objective they are likely to succeed, even by the Navy's own
predictions.

Regardless, I don't think there Navy won't pose much threat. Where
their vast experiece lies is on the ground and perhaps air war due to
the encounters with Iraq


The technology that Iran got by way of China and North Korea was
recently tested against the IsReeLee forces, and found to be effective.

If a Skvall torp hits a carrier, it could be in serious trouble. A
lesser vessel will sink. Swarms of surface to surface guided missiles
will swamp and overwhelm the defenses of any fleet within the confined
spaces of the Gulf.

VAMPIRE means missile, fool. Between the mines, torps, missiles and
speedboat jihadists, our boiz will have their hands full. Only an idiot
would take the Iranian forces lightly, and the Pentagon seems fully
stocked with idiots nowadays.

Defendario wrote:
wrote:
Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.


There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off



AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


Rummy is a NeoKlown, and thinks he can do more with less than any
military leader in the history of mankind. He is a dangerous idiot, and
is going to get boatloads of sailors killed.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job


Define "the job"

The only thing Dumsfeld knows about jobs is

let "Boeing handle it",
since they're the only people understand Physics.

Ans the only thing Boeing know about Missles is:
Let "IBM" handle it", since they're
the only people who understand letterrs.

wrote:
Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.

Just as the USN never remembers that
Egypt, rather than Olympic idiots like
Ronnie Reagan closed the Suez Canal.




AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran.

SNIP

Yep, agreed.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon.

SNIP

Which is the reason you shouldn't listen the Loonie Left when they make
their monthly prediction of "US WILL invade insert name of country
here" announcements.

After all they've successfullly predicted all the US inavsions ovre the
past two years....

AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

What make you think that the US WILL invade Iran? As far as I know,
nobody has made any such suggestion, unless you count certain people in
this group, even if the US decided to invade, don't you think that they
will at least wait until after the mid-term election?

eatfastnoodle wrote:
[snip]

What make you think that the US WILL invade Iran? As far as I know,
nobody has made any such suggestion, unless you count certain people in
this group, even if the US decided to invade, don't you think that they
will at least wait until after the mid-term election?

A sensible general will wait for the dust storms rains to finish.
January is a better time to invade.

Andrew Swallow