StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CNN reports in their article about the new arms inspections that the Pentagon plans on having FOUR aircraft carriers within striking distance of Iraq sometime in mid- December . The navy says that it's just an accident of deployment, but man that's an awful lot of firepower to just happen to wind up in a volitile region.

Whoops, forgot to post the link. Here it is

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

irishmick79 wrote:The navy says that it's just an accident of deployment, but man that's an awful lot of firepower to just happen to wind up in a volitile region.

Accident of deployment my ass. They're very clearly surging ship deployments specifically to put a large number of carriers within striking range of Iraq at about the time ME weather cools down enough that an invasion is possible.

See the commentaries on http://www.globalsecurity.org for more details.

Enlightenment wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:The navy says that it's just an accident of deployment, but man that's an awful lot of firepower to just happen to wind up in a volitile region.

Accident of deployment my ass. They're very clearly surging ship deployments specifically to put a large number of carriers within striking range of Iraq at about the time ME weather cools down enough that an invasion is possible.

See the commentaries on http://www.globalsecurity.org for more details.

Sounds about right. No need to wait until hostilities actualy occur to start preparing for them.

Make that Five... The Pacific Fleet will be sailing past India in a couple of weeks

Don’t forget the half dozen corps and Army headquarters' in theater or already earmarked for deployment. The B-2 Shelters being set up at DG and the steady stream of equipment moving out of Saudi and into Qatar.

5 Carriers? Holy shit...

We are not fucking around this time around

As its been said by some, Why in Bobs name agree to a Deadline?

Cause we have the Strike Planed for Decemener 9th

Howedar wrote:5 Carriers? Holy shit...

An understatement, for Desert Storm we only had six, out of fifteen, for much of Desert shield only two where on hand. Five out of twelve on the budget of eight is damn fucking incredible . . They might have smaller air groups but the thousands of JDAM's and other guided weapons they now have make them far more effective. For Storm the Navy only had a limited stock of Paveway II's, now they have the full range of Paveway III's, lots more SLAM's and of course JDAM's.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Don’t forget the half dozen corps and Army headquarters' in theater or already earmarked for deployment. The B-2 Shelters being set up at DG and the steady stream of equipment moving out of Saudi and into Qatar.

Which doesn't change the fact that our total ground forces total in the gulf is rather small, limited to perhaps two divisions of combat strength Army and Marine combined (including the offshore MEU which I know has got to be there). If something were to go down we'd have to move combat and support troops into position in Kuwait which would take a decent amount of time though we'd still be in the winter/early spring season when the temepratures aren't as bad (high is usually only about 100).

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Don’t forget the half dozen corps and Army headquarters' in theater or already earmarked for deployment. The B-2 Shelters being set up at DG and the steady stream of equipment moving out of Saudi and into Qatar.

Which doesn't change the fact that our total ground forces total in the gulf is rather small, limited to perhaps two divisions of combat strength Army and Marine combined (including the offshore MEU which I know has got to be there). If something were to go down we'd have to move combat and support troops into position in Kuwait which would take a decent amount of time though we'd still be in the winter/early spring season when the temepratures aren't as bad (high is usually only about 100).

SL-7's can move a heavy division to the area every three weeks or so. However I'd expect a quite long aerial assault with only limited ground attacks to try and draw out Iraqi troop to where they can be bombed to be the most that happens until January anyway.

I don’t think we need worry about Kuwait. Iraq's chances of overwhelming five heavy brigades with equipment for two more close at hand a four carriers worth of support seem rather slim.

Gah, don't remind me. I'm flying out to my ship the middle of next month (Not one of the Carriers, but part of a Battle Group)

Sea Skimmer wrote: An understatement, for Desert Storm we only had six, out of fifteen, for much of Desert shield only two where on hand.

Yeah, that was fun. In the Red Sea out of the Red Sea, in the Red Sea out of the Red Sea (I've got some nice pictures of the Suez canal ). Everytime we left we had to give our SRBOC* rounds to the JFK and then we had to get them back again the next time in. I'm not sure what they did when both ships were in the Red Sea at the same time. Thankfully I was at home or school at that time.


*SRBOC: Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff. The version for carriers has a little extra oompf to get it further away from the ship than a conventional round. They also weigh about 55lbs so they are a pain in the ass to hump through catwalks and up and down ladders.

Tsyroc wrote: Yeah, that was fun. In the Red Sea out of the Red Sea, in the Red Sea out of the Red Sea (I've got some nice pictures of the Suez canal ). Everytime we left we had to give our SRBOC* rounds to the JFK and then we had to get them back again the next time in. I'm not sure what they did when both ships were in the Red Sea at the same time. Thankfully I was at home or school at that time.


*SRBOC: Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff. The version for carriers has a little extra oompf to get it further away from the ship than a conventional round. They also weigh about 55lbs so they are a pain in the ass to hump through catwalks and up and down ladders.

EW?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Don’t forget the half dozen corps and Army headquarters' in theater or already earmarked for deployment. The B-2 Shelters being set up at DG and the steady stream of equipment moving out of Saudi and into Qatar.

Which doesn't change the fact that our total ground forces total in the gulf is rather small, limited to perhaps two divisions of combat strength Army and Marine combined (including the offshore MEU which I know has got to be there). If something were to go down we'd have to move combat and support troops into position in Kuwait which would take a decent amount of time though we'd still be in the winter/early spring season when the temepratures aren't as bad (high is usually only about 100).

SL-7's can move a heavy division to the area every three weeks or so. However I'd expect a quite long aerial assault with only limited ground attacks to try and draw out Iraqi troop to where they can be bombed to be the most that happens until January anyway.

Sure they can move the division but the logistical tail is yet another thing and the bigger the deployment the mroe you will need additional assets because the direct support units at the divisional level will nto be able to sustain an offensive. In other words there is a lot of tail to be moved to the gulf and even a very rapid deployment with immediate commmitement and full diversion of Sealift and Airlift assets will take a couple months.

I don't think we need worry about Kuwait. Iraq's chances of overwhelming five heavy brigades with equipment for two more close at hand a four carriers worth of support seem rather slim.

I was saying go to Kuwait because it gives you the ability to very quickly cross either the Euphrates or the Euphrates and Tigris while still under close support thus making an effective strike against Baghdad all that much easier and generating fewer casualties.

Rhadamanthus wrote:EW?

In a previous life...yes.

CmdrWilkens wrote: Which doesn't change the fact that our total ground forces total in the gulf is rather small, limited to perhaps two divisions of combat strength Army and Marine combined (including the offshore MEU which I know has got to be there).

Globalsecurity.org has an estimated US orbat: http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ ... 021202.htm

At current troop levels, if the US finds itself in an invade&occupy situation where the Iraqi army doesn't either switch sides or surrender on the spot then the only ass that's going to get kicked is that of the US armed forces.

Rhadamanthus wrote:Gah, don't remind me. I'm flying out to my ship the middle of next month (Not one of the Carriers, but part of a Battle Group)

What ship are you on?

Enlightenment wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Which doesn't change the fact that our total ground forces total in the gulf is rather small, limited to perhaps two divisions of combat strength Army and Marine combined (including the offshore MEU which I know has got to be there).

Globalsecurity.org has an estimated US orbat: http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ ... 021202.htm

At current troop levels, if the US finds itself in an invade&occupy situation where the Iraqi army doesn't either switch sides or surrender on the spot then the only ass that's going to get kicked is that of the US armed forces.

Given that a single American armored cavalry troop wiped out a brigade of there best for nil losses in a couple hours, and what infantry did fight firmly still got slaughtered even in positions dug into for months with extensive barrier systems, I don’t think we have much to fear.

If troop numbers where all that mattered, or even half that mattered the PLA would have overrun most of Asia by now.

Ted wrote:

Rhadamanthus wrote:Gah, don't remind me. I'm flying out to my ship the middle of next month (Not one of the Carriers, but part of a Battle Group)

What ship are you on?

USS Higgins DDG-76