Sixth U.S. Ship Now in Eastern Mediterranean 'As Precaution'...

[Indi Guy]

Source: Reuters



A sixth U.S. warship is now operating in the eastern Mediterranean, near five U.S. destroyers armed with cruise missiles that could soon be directed against Syria as part of a "limited, precise" strike, defense officials said late on Friday.

They stressed that the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with several hundred U.S. Marines on board, was in the region for a different reason and there were no plans to put Marines on the ground as part of any military action against Syria.

One of the officials said the San Antonio's passage into the Mediterranean was long-planned, but officials thought it prudent to keep the ship in the eastern Mediterranean near the destroyers given the current situation.

"It's been kept there as a precaution," said one of the officials, who was not authorized to speak publicly...

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-ships-idUSBRE97U01Z20130831?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

[HooptieWagon]

1. Here we go again.

Middle East quagmires are our Tarbaby.

[mbperrin]

2. Yep.

It's crap.

[another_liberal]

4. Want to guess . . .

Precisely. One huge, stinking pile.

Want to guess who will have to clean it up?

[mbperrin]

11. Yeah, but don't forget:

"if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here."

"we may have to destroy a village to save it."

"let's win their hearts and minds."

and other shitty lies....

[another_liberal]

3. Boys will be boys.

That's more than enough warships if our plan really is to just send Assad a "shot across the bow" which will only involve "a few cruise missile strikes."

Still and all, nothing to worry about here. Boys will be boys. You have to break a few eggs. We'll be home before Christmas.

[frylock]

5. certainly not 6 months......

[another_liberal]

6. "Isn't it . . ."

"Isn't it pretty to think so?"

[newfie11]

7. Do war ships always carry several hundred marines?

With the statement of no boots on the ground, I am curious if this is the norm or are we getting ready to put boots on the ground?

[Angleae]

8. This kind does.

USS San Antonio is an amphibious vessel whose main job is to put marines ashore. Most times an amphib deploys overseas it's with several hundered marines.

[newfie11]

10. Thanks

I had no idea

[Baclava]

9. Old munitions are getting dusty on the shelf - time to blow them up and order more

and the wars go on


Raytheon awarded $254.6 million for Tomahawk missile



The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a $254.6 million contract to procure Tomahawk Block IV tactical cruise missiles for fiscal year 2013.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_awarded_254_6_million_for_Tomahawk_missile_999.html



------------------------

Clash With Syria Could be a Windfall for Tomahawk Missile Maker Raytheon

The U.S. has signaled a clash with Syria would rely on the Tomahawk missiles Raytheon sells for $1 million each.

http://www.globalne.ws/Latest/D/4028810e40ca46f50140cfb33edb66d4/Clash-With-Syria-Could-be-a-Windfall-for-Tomahawk-Missile-Maker-Raytheon#.UiG71uYo7IU

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Follow the money. The WH is just the frontman.

[progressoid]

13. 'As Precaution'

Uhm, OK. That's not really fooling anyone.

[happyslug]

14. This ship carries no Cruise Missiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Antonio_(LPD-17)

Now, the five Destroyers have to be Arleigh Burke Destroyers, the only active Destroyers in the US Fleet today. These have 90-96 Vertical Launcher systems, which mean they can have as many as 96 Missiles. Once fired the ship must go back to port to be re-loaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

Please note, these 96 missile launchers can have cruise Missiles, Anti-Aircraft Missiles or Anti-Submarine missiles (or any other type of launcher, I have read some subs have two man submersible vehicles that fight in the same type of launcher used on submarines). Also not there is no requirement that these launchers all have missiles in them. The Navy on a cost cutting move could even send the ships out with empty launchers (i.e. no missiles at all, unlikely but possible).

If we assume 96 missiles pr ship that comes to 480 Missiles. Not all of these missiles will be Cruise Missiles, many will be anti-Sub and Anti-Aircraft (But not as many as when the Soviet Union existed. the Soviet Navy had subs and aircraft that no other navy today, including the Russian Navy of today, could come near to today).

On the other hand, the main weapon to be used against these ships are Aircraft and small ships, thus so many anti-Aircraft and Anti-Ship Missiles would be carried (And Iran does have some submarines, so some anti-Submarine missiles would be carried, in case these ships are sent to the Persian Gulf).

Now these Destroyer's main mission is to secure the sea lanes, thus Cruise Missiles would have been down played when it was determined what these launchers should be armed with. Thus total Cruise missiles I would put at 300, maybe 400 out of the 480 missiles (or 450 if these are what the US Navy calls "Flight 1 Arleigh Burke class destroyer" Flight 1 has only 90 launchers, flight 2 has 96). That is a lot, but no where near what the US used in Desert Storm in 1991, or even what the US used against Saddam after 9/11 (Four Carriers were involved along with land based aircraft in both situations).