Carriers, Strike groups & where they are not located-the missles ships carr...

[FogerRox]

There has been a lot of We're attacking Iran posts all over the internet.

I feel the need to address some the poor information being posted recently concerning ship and troop deployments.

Don't mix up Tomahawk & Harpoon missles....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2467508#2472247

ARLEIGH BURKE’s don’t carry Tomahawk cruise missles, they carry a defensive Sea Sparrow:

ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS Mason-DDG-87
Armament 1 x 5"/62 RF, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 90 VLS Cells,
2 SH-60B helicopters, 8 Harpoon Missiles, 6 x 12.75" TT.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01087.htm

“Two helicopter aircraft carriers with 5500 Marines aboard total”
These are small carriers, a large fleet carrier doesn’t even carry 5500 in crew.
Wiki says a Battalion, tops 1200 troops, not 5500.

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

Here a Battalion is 800 to 900 troops:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356754

“Note: I read somewhere in my research that guided missile cruisers carry 120 cruise missiles each.”

2 Launchers and 122 Tomahawks:

-guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio-CG-68 :
Armament: MK26 missile launcher (CG 47 thru CG 51) Standard Missile (MR) or MK41 vertical launching system (CG 52 thru CG 73) Standard Missile (MR); 2, Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Anzio_(CG-68)

Generally speaking Carrier groups need missle defense, they usually are escorted by destroyers that carry Harpoon and Sea Sparoow missles for defense.

Here a poster uses the term “major ship of the line”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2467508#2473081

A term traditionally reserved for Battleships or Heavy cruisers. Not Minesweepers, Destroyers or Cruisers.

MEUFrom Wiki:
A Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is the smallest Marine Air-Ground Task Force in the United States Marine Corps.
The Marine Expeditionary Unit is normally built around a Marine infantry battalion, a composite helicopter squadron, a MEU Service Support Group, and a Command Element. Troop strength is about 2,200, commanded by a colonel. Occasionally a MEU is built around a regiment and is called a Marine Expedtionary Brigade (MEB) and is commanded by a Brigadier General.
The MEU is routinely deployed with fleets in the Mediterranean, the Western Pacific, and periodically, the Atlantic and Indian Oceans for roughly 6 months; unless in a time of crisis and war. Up to four naval amphibious ships are needed to carry the necessary troops and equipment.
note the use of the term SMALLEST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Expeditionary_Unit
This article infers only part of the 24th MEU landed in Kuwait:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=39514&archive=true

Wiki says a Battalion, tops 1200 troops, not 5500.

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

Here a Battalion is 800 to 900 troops:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356754


Here a post infers the Kitty Hawk is bound for Iran, Kitty left Japan Oct 20th: And also mentions the Stennis which is still off So Cal.
“If they pushed it up to 30 knots, that group could be off Dubai by the 29th.”
Except Kitty is in the Philippine Sea, IIRC that’s the wrong direction.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

Now, what do you want to do? Drop conventional Bunker busters on Iran?
Missles
The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a short range missile intended to provide self-protection for surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-162.htm

The Harpoon missile provides the Navy and the Air Force with a common missile for air, ship, and submarine launches. The weapon system uses mid-course guidance with a radar seeker to attack surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-84.htm

Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missile
On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing. Work will be performed in Tucson AZ and is expected to be completed by March 2003.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

Bunker Busters

This is the the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters). It weighs about 4,400 pounds. The GBU-27/GBU-24 (aka BLU-109) is nearly identical to the GBU-28, except that it weighs only 2,000 pounds (900 kg). It is less expensive to manufacture, and a bomber can carry more of them on each mission.



Air-to-air view of GBU-28 hard target bomb on an F-15E Eagle.




The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter”, except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances. From :

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

The MOAB can only be dropped from a C-130, a land based plane. The rest of these “Busters” are too small, they can blow a crater about 20 to 30 feet deep in soil, not rock, not concrete.

This story is worth watching, closely. But the Ship & Troop movements we are seeing are nothing to worry about when it comes to attacking Iran. But I will finish by saying “Remember the Maine”. Which is why I am watching DESCON 2, 2 of its ships are older, IIRC scheduled for scrapping in 2008, that’s a prime candidate for the Gulf of Tonkin.

Vigilance.

But don’t cry WOLF.

[The Magistrate]

1. Your Efforts Are Much Appreciated, Sir

Most of the speculation on this subject is rooted in lack of knowledge of military equipments and routines.

[FogerRox]

7. About 2 weeks ago there was an oft repeated misnomer

that the Ike was a Nuke powered "Battleship"..... And it was crossposted all over the Blogosphere.

[The Magistrate]

10. Someone Once Said, Sir

"If ignorance is bliss, the internet is a non-stop orgy."

[razors edge]

2. The real question is

what do we have predeployed in Israel? I would bet that we have everything we need right there and in flight refueling from Iraq air bases would not be too difficult.

[The Magistrate]

3. That Is Not 'The Real Question', Sir, Or Even A Real Question

It is simply silliness, and an attempt to shoe-horn discussion of Israel v. Palestine, and condemnation of Israel, into an otherwise reasonable discussion on this forum.

[razors edge]

4. No sir

It was based on reports I have read for some time about an american base in israel. Those bases will provide a strategic purpose if all out war were to take place in the middle east and ignoring it does not change it.

http://www.thegoldenreport.com/asp/jerrysnewsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=928&print=yes

American Base In Israel.
Posted: Sunday, July 10, 2005
- written by jerry golden

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







Many have written asking me about the Barry Chamish Report of the American Base here in Israel. Barry and I went there today and I can tell you that it is there. In fact, it isn’t even being hidden, but how would they hide such a thing anyway. What they are doing is saying it is a storage facility and the US is building it for Israel. But let me tell you that makes absolutely no sense. I don’t know how many buildings are already constructed or what they are for but we can make some good guesses. Look at these for example.

[The Magistrate]

6. Merest Swill, Sir

A fundamentalist's fantasy, that has been in circulation for a long time, and is of no signifigance whatever.

Do you have, by the way, any idea how heavy weapons are transfered onto warships? You would you like to suggest how materiel could be transfered from this mythical "base" to useful purpose in the Persian Gulf?

[FogerRox]

11. The Magstrate speaks of Logistics, & So did Sun Tzu.

Forward deployment of Material is essential. without it, an attack on Iran would last 2 or 3 days. Then folks would run out of beans and bullets. ANd then be very open to attack without the proper means to defend themselves.

[razors edge]

12. Fundamentalist?

I didn't know we athiests had those, but OK. Ever hear of a C-5 gallaxy, ever work on one?
wasn't my MOS but when you need a busted hudraulic line fixed one A-9 is better than none.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=84

With aerial refueling, the aircraft's range is limited only by crew endurance.

[FogerRox]

13. Are you asking if Sun Tzu is a Fundamentalist?

Sun Tzu is a Chinese tactician/General from IIRC 1000BC.

Aerial refueling is problematic for a number of reasons I am sure you are aware of. It is desirable to reduce the complexity of logistics, not complicate logistics. Again Bahrain.

[The Magistrate]

14. You Cited It As Authoritative, Sir

Do you ever bother to actually examine sites you cite as authority for factual statements? It is a helpful practice....

Air to air refueling has nothing whatever to do with what you have attempted to allege, that useful quantities of materiel have been stock-piled in Israel for a U.S. attack on Iran on the near future. That is mere stuff and moon-shine, and you are not even coming close to demonstrating otherwise.

[razors edge]

17. OK, I give up,

what is the base for then?

[The Magistrate]

20. It Is Not, Sir, Even Demonstrated To Exist

The report of this fantasist, even accompanied by pictures there is only his word concerning the provenance of, is quite insufficient to demonstrate that.

[razors edge]

25. well then kindly provide me one unrelated instance where

the person who reported such is clearly demonstrated to be a fantasist, and I will provide my humblest apologies for distributing such on this board.

[The Magistrate]

27. Read The Site, Sir

It abounds in such....

[Vidar]

40. Noting the refreshing 18th century quality of "Merest Swill, Sir". lol

[razors edge]

41. Sound and fury.

[Vidar]

54. Huh? I expressed amusement at use of language.

I'm familiar with the Faulknerian & Shakesperian reference you are making, but don't see the humor.

[FogerRox]

16. Yeah, I'm getting that shoe-horn feeling.

Back to the OP.

Bush has a choice. Attack Iran or the False Flag "Maine".

Attacking leads to the question of Nuke or Conventional?

[razors edge]

21. False Flag Maine,

then attack Iran. The plans for Afganistan were drawn before 9-11.

[FogerRox]

24. Thank you. You say Attack Iran, do you mean hit its nuke sites?

with Nukes or Conventional?

[razors edge]

28. I think Nuke on underground sites

deny it later, and large scale offenses with conventional on urban sites.

[FogerRox]

31. Do you mean invasion? Or Bombing?

[razors edge]

34. Invade with what?

worn out troops from the green zone? blackwater? I think a strike and draft, if a conflict does arrise.

Bush would have to do it before january.

[FogerRox]

36. Invade with what army... exactly.

unless you got one in your back pocket....J/k

[The Magistrate]

26. Nothing Of The Sort Will Happen, Sir

One might easily draw from your comment the conclusion you imagine the United States carried out the attacks on the W.T.C. buildings and the Pentagon.

The U.S.S. Maine, by the way, exploded owing to negligence of the crew in storing black powder: modern warships were pretty new to our Navy in those days, and the skill level was quite poor in some elementary areas.

[FogerRox]

30. But the Board of inquiry, 75 yrs later, but but, but

[razors edge]

32. Actually a coffer damn was built around

the Maine and from pictures taken coal explosion was the most likely cause.

Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with the findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover published his book, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. The admiral became interested in the disaster and wondered if the application of modern scientific knowledge could determine the cause. He called on two experts on explosions and their effects on ship hulls. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine.

Some historians have disputed the findings in Rickover's book, maintaining that failure to detect spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker was highly unlikely. Yet evidence of a mine remains thin and such theories are based primarily on conjecture. Despite the best efforts of experts and historians in investigating this complex and technical subject, a definitive explanation for the destruction of Maine remains elusive.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm

As far as 9-11 goes, we will see, for now I'm in the majority in thinking the official story BS. Though I fail to see the connection between my lack of belief in the bush admin and the above. discussing.

[The Magistrate]

35. In Other Words, Sir, Not A False Flag Operation

Not a thing contrived by the U.S. government to advance some political purpose, though certainly political capital was made of the accidental explosion.

A great many people, myself included, understand there are flaws and coverings up in the version of events provided by the government, but that hardly indicates any great number of people share the view it was an action contrived by the U.S. and falsely blamed on al Queda. Your claim above, referencing a prior intention to invade Afghanistan in connection with "false flag" operations suggests you are of that latter view. If you are not, it would be no trouble to state you are not openly. You brought the topic up, suggesting it was a reason to believe a "fa;se flag" attack on U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf would occur, and it speaks to the quality of your analysis of events.

[razors edge]

52. Also not a powder blast

as you incorrectly inferred.

[FogerRox]

37. Of course the Mine wasn't outside, it was inside. LOL.

[FogerRox]

5. Ahem ..Our Air base in Bahrain makes more sense than using Isreal.

Bahrain is much closer. Betcha didn't consider that.....

[razors edge]

8. Perhaps

but i believe all these bases will have their own specialized purposes. Warm water ports that allow secure unloading of cargo will all be of major importance. Those secured by a allied army will provide superior security for the most valued resources.

[The Magistrate]

9. But That Would Require Actual Knowledge Of The Situation, Sir

And would give no excuse for citing a fundamentalist "Jews for Jesus" style nut-case who is of the opinion the current administration does not support Israel enough, and is in fact arming Arab Palestinian terrorists. Clearly someone with the inside dope on U.S. military activities and deployments....

[razors edge]

15. I don't discount someones reporting

based on their religion, if I did I would never believe anyone's reporting. How hard would be to figure out the situation considering we have rattled the handle off of two or three sabers over the last few years.

I never implied I agreed with the reporters underling motivations for making the report. That is irrelevant to me, only the fact of the base being there with no other acknowledgment makes it suspect, and open to interpretation, yours and mine.

[The Magistrate]

18. You Would Be Well Advised To Learn To Do So, Sir

When a person's religiousity is as off the scale as this fellow's is, it serves to impeach the validity of his judgement, and even the balance of his mind.

[razors edge]

38. If he's off the scale

who do you still consider on the scale? Please advise.

[The Magistrate]

45. Not My Problem, Sir

You are the one attempting to demonstrate the existance of a major U.S. military base in Israel, that will be an essential support for a U.S. attack on Iran in the near future. So far, all you have come up with in support of this is the claim of a reactionary religious lunatic.

[razors edge]

50. These guys any more to your liking?

Top Secret American Military Installations In Israel
Arutz7 News - January 28, 2004

"Code Names," by William M. Arkin, exposes information about at least five US Army bases at secret locations throughout the Jewish State, including one at Ben Gurion Airport and another in Herzliya Pituah. The book also provides a long list of code names describing joint military operations between Israel and America.

Arkin is an independent journalist and military commentator for NBC and a former intelligence analyst for US ground forces. A front-page story in "The New York Times," based on one of the book's revelations has given the book broad publicity and granted it wide legitimacy.

Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East," when explaining why the US viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the US grants Israel every year. The new revelations also act to weaken the argument for Israeli policy decisions based on "American pressure."

Arkin claims that the officially "non-existent" sites across Israel contain $500 million worth of ammunition the United States keeps in Israel for wartime contingencies. The bases, called Sites 51, 53, 54, 55 and 56 don't appear on any maps and their specific locations are classified and highly sensitive.

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2005/012805.htm

Sorry no pics this time.

[The Magistrate]

53. Mr. Arkin Is Respectable Enough, Sir

What he seems to be describing, though, is very small potatoes, and nowhere near sufficient to bear the weight you have attempted to rest on it.

The sourcing, too, is again pretty poor. The Israel National News is an ultra-right, ultra-nationalist tabloid, and the site quoting this piece is devoted to exaggerating both U.S. co-operation with Israel, and U.S. actions against it, as a means of grinding the axe of the penalties Mr. Pollard is paying for some very poor judgements of his. It ought to have been possible to track down something containing the actual article in question, as it once had some real circulation. That would afford a better basis for consideration of its true import.

[FogerRox]

19. Back to the OP, I object to thread hijacking

Attack Iran or False Flag attack on US ship/s?

[The Magistrate]

23. Neither, Sir

Ordinary rotation, being made much of by scare-mongers of various stripe.

[FogerRox]

29. Because the resources needed for a realistic attack are far flung and nowhere near

being forward deployed. At least when Tommie Franks invaded Iraq, he was almost ready, but GWB apparently told Franks to attack before Franks was ready, thusly 1 week later our troops sat in the desert waiting for Fuel, Water & Food. And potentially open to slaughter....... then the partially pre assembled supply train got its act together, and made it out of Kuwait.

But I lost track of DESCON 2, with those 2 old Destroyers. But they have not showed up in the Arabian sea, so they are a moot point.

I agree, at this time, neither.

[madrchsod]

22. wow nice job of researching the issue

in my opinion a sea battle in that area would be a disaster for the us navy, although we would prevail, the cost in lives and machines would be horrific. only a lunatic would order a naval engagement in the this bathtub called the persian gulf





if anything would happen it would be with air power miles from any possible iranian counter attack

[FogerRox]

33. Operations could be conducted from the Arabian sea or the Gulf of Oman.

Without getting near the Straights of Hormuz. And you correctly alude to a standard tactical doctrine concerning the use of Aircraft carriers. Stay the frig away from what can hit you, Standoff, reach out and touch some-one with your air power.

[bemildred]

39. I am rather skeptical that this is anything but posturing.

Politically the verbal warfare and military posturing are very useful to both Iran and the USA. Neither has much to gain by engaging in real warfare, and both have a lot to lose.

[FogerRox]

42. I agree, bemildred, though vigilence is the word.

The Bush Crime family cannot be trusted and I prefer to keep a close eye on them.

[bemildred]

43. True, that.

One should never discount the effects of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity.

[FogerRox]

44. Kickin for some recs...... please,,,,,,,

[FogerRox]

49. and a kick

:kick:

[FogerRox]

51. After Dinner kick

[cosmik debris]

46. I believe the Iran attack is still 2 yrs away.

It is the Oct. surprise for 2008. Just my opinion.

[FogerRox]

47. Don't you jive me with that Cosmic debris . . .

[gordianot]

48. I tend to agree. The ace in the hole.

If it occurs in 2008 they will try to blame the Democratic congress who has spent so much time investigating the many crimes of the last 6 years. Like Nixon all Bush will have left is the "football".

I know wishful thinking.