A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 13th 06, 08:36 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
AirRaid[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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

  #2  
Old October 13th 06, 10:34 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

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


  #3  
Old October 14th 06, 02:16 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Defendario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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"



  #4  
Old October 14th 06, 05:44 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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....

  #5  
Old October 14th 06, 07:24 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
eatfastnoodle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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?

  #6  
Old October 14th 06, 08:38 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Ralph_S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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.



I agree with you that three carrier groups doesn't seem enough, but
would advise you not to listen to the nutters here who claim that a US
attack is imminent. They don't have any solid info either and are just
speculating and putting out propaganda for whatever agenda they
support.

Cheers,
Ralph

  #7  
Old October 14th 06, 03:31 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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

  #8  
Old October 14th 06, 10:52 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Defendario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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.



  #9  
Old October 15th 06, 08:50 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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
  #10  
Old October 15th 06, 12:13 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Andrew Swallow wrote:
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


IIRC that was one of the "justifications" for the March 2003 invasion
of Iraq, later we get heat and dust storms and we want to avoid those.
Three years later...

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nations sending Iran to Security Council (for Israel via the US, of course!): NOMOREWARFORISRAEL Naval Aviation 1 July 13th 06 05:05 AM
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran [email protected] Naval Aviation 11 January 5th 06 10:38 AM
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 11:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 10:45 PM
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! Malcolm Austin Soaring 0 November 6th 04 12:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.