You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #110: Right now there 4-5 carriers in the Western Pacific. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #97
110. Right now there 4-5 carriers in the Western Pacific.
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 02:21 PM by FogerRox
1- Why the rush to get the Eisenhower Group deployed before their scheduled departure date, if this is just standard operating procedure? (Many of the family members are upset about this).

IIRC the yard was very proud of their preformance in that regard. With 4- carriers in WEs Pac, gettting the Ike out early to rotae with Enterprise, makes sense. With no other CV group in the Atlantic, the NAvy would have to move a CV from maybe.. San Diego

2- If I read correctly, there are minesweepers being deployed to the gulf area --why would there be a need for mine sweepers in the gulf area?

After the Iraq Iraq War, there still maybe some mines floating around. WW2 mines were found for quite a while. And quite frankly, the Persian Gulf is considered a tight area to operate. Coastal frieght, small aircraft. SO to not take mine sweepers and defensive ships that are anti shipping & Anti air. might be considered foolish. Mine sweepers & Destroyers also do anti sub patrol, they have good sonar arrays and crews are trained for exactly this kind of work.

3- Is it possible for Iran, and anyone else with internet access, to locate and spot US ships using Google Earth, or other satellite technology?

Its easy to get general info on deployments that are normal. Google Earth is not real time, IT uses stock pix, some from 4,5, 6 yrs ago. IIRC no-one delivers real time info of this sort in a commercial sense. I would think Iran would need some-one to provide them with data from a sat. Think Russia.

4- Why has Congress not stated that Bush needs to come back to them for authorization to enter into any future conflict, and that the authorization they passed allowing force to be used on Iraq is not sufficient to justify an attack on any other Middle Eastern country?

Congress? NEO CON Congress ? And the Unitary Executive?

On EDIT----

I did a check on movements here. Marines & Navy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2301544

Notice each CV has ships with Harpoon & Sparrow missles, and an Aegis class. They come with the Phalanx system, Re: close in air defense. Those Marine exp. forces are at most 6k troops, AN Expidetionary force is about the equivalent of Army Battalion =6k troops.

This will give you a good idea where our Carriers are:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC