Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three US carrier strike groups steam in formation in Pacific Ocean (Awesome photo)
AP via Yahoo! ^ | 6/19/06

Posted on 06/19/2006 12:49:10 PM PDT by dead

The USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike
groups steam in formation during a joint photo exercise (PHOTOEX) in preparation
for Valiant Shield 2006 on Sunday, June 18, 2006, in the Pacific Ocean. The
PHOTOEX featured 14 ships as well as 17 aircraft from Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corp including a B2 bomber. The Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group is
currently participating in Valiant Shield 2006, the largest joint exercise in recent
history. Held in the Guam operating area beginning June 19-23, the exercise
involves 28 Naval vessels including three carrier strike groups, more than 300
aircraft and more than 20,000 service members from the Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy, Jarod Hodge) Email Photo Print Photo


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: guam; gwot; jointexercises; nationaldefense; northkorea; shipmovement; usaf; usn; ussabrahamlincoln; usskittyhawk; ussronaldreagan; valiantshield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last
To: Paco

[That's exactly what I was thinking. NK is supposed to test fire a missile...what if they armed it and launched it at the battle group? Not much of a chance they'd do that, but...why give them such a fat, juicy target?]

Blahahaha! NK wouldn't try to sink a few Navy ships with a nuke. If they did, their country would be a glowing pile of glass... they know this.


51 posted on 06/19/2006 1:30:25 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dead

That looks like a lot of foreign diplomacy under way


52 posted on 06/19/2006 1:30:54 PM PDT by Former MSM Viewer ("Some of our successes will be known only to a few." W 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo; dead; CholeraJoe; Doohickey
So which carrier launched the B-2 in the photo?


Er, uhm, the purple (joint ops) carrier?
53 posted on 06/19/2006 1:31:15 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: zarf
>I still have my doubts about these types of naval forces...

"Don't be too proud
of this technological terror
you've constructed. The ability
to destroy a planet is insignificant
next to the power of the Force.
"

54 posted on 06/19/2006 1:32:13 PM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

"subs being the shy type" LOL

I've met a few submariners and they ain't shy...


55 posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:05 PM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

You can't see it, it's stealthy.


56 posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:42 PM PDT by kallisti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

"Joint" means one thing if you were in the military, and quite another if you're Libertarian.


57 posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:49 PM PDT by Doohickey (Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.

I understand your perspective but let's try to remember that those tenacious pilots of Argentina lost the war and Britain was victorious.
58 posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:59 PM PDT by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bjcintennessee

ping


59 posted on 06/19/2006 1:35:43 PM PDT by ImaTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.

When, if ever, did our guys ever loose a dog fight?
60 posted on 06/19/2006 1:35:43 PM PDT by gipper81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
The advantage of the carrier task force(s) is that they Can move from an aimpoint to a miss point very very quickly.

Assume a max speed of 40 knots - and they can go quicker in an emergency. It takes about a half hour for a missile from NK to land in the southern/mid pacific Pacific area, so you'd get a half-hour warning, 2 minute message and transmit time, and be (more than) 20 nautical miles from the (previously assumed) aiming point - which would be about 10 miles in front of the photo-op position anyway - since the KN's would have to aim for a moving target.

Biggest problem would be finding out that the damned KN fire control and missile flight ops and missile recovery and ballistic re-entry calculations stunk and they accidentally missed the real target and landed on you as you tried to evade the original intended target position!
61 posted on 06/19/2006 1:36:09 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
If you right click on the photo above and select 'set as background', it should appear as your desktop background. Did for me.

Yeah...but that fighter jet behind the B1s on the right side...the last (4th) one is not in formation....it spoils the symmetry. ;^)

62 posted on 06/19/2006 1:36:09 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gipper81

We did lose a bunch of MiG dogfights in both Korea and Vietnam before training (topgun and its brothers) started up.


63 posted on 06/19/2006 1:37:01 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: zarf

UNDER THE WATER WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN.


64 posted on 06/19/2006 1:40:56 PM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dead
Yea, 4 15s, 4 F-16s, a B-2, and 8 F/A-18s, plus all the aircraft on the decks of the three carriers, not to mention all the tomahawks in the launch cells of the other ships, could ruin someones entire life.

Although that wouldn't be long most likely.

65 posted on 06/19/2006 1:41:40 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

Was a sailor once back in the day. That photo brought back for me the indescribable beauty of the vastness of the ocean out at sea. Thanks for posting it.


66 posted on 06/19/2006 1:45:48 PM PDT by dagogo redux (I never met a Dem yet who didn't understand a slap in the face, or a slug from a 45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The unsinkable USS Andersen Field (Guam)

Yes, unsinkable, but very difficult to manuever if targeted.

67 posted on 06/19/2006 1:46:48 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

Nonsense! She'll go just where you put her!

68 posted on 06/19/2006 1:48:52 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dead
Great photo. The flight decks are all configured the same with two ready alert Hornets ready to launch from each flight deck. A paired off squadron of F-15's, F-16's, Marine F/A-18 C/D's, Super Hornets, and a B-2. Looking for snorkels from the fast attack subs underneath. Lots of power in that huddle waiting for the play to be called in.........and North Korea has elected to receive!
69 posted on 06/19/2006 1:51:56 PM PDT by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.

From my amateur knowledge of that war:
Argentina ran out of Exocet missiles. Also the Exocet codes were acquired by the English from Mitterand and Exocets were thus sabotaged.

With enough effective Exocets the British would have lost

70 posted on 06/19/2006 2:03:53 PM PDT by dennisw (Fate of Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The Argentines used Super Etendards to launch the Exocets.

If the Brits took out the planes, the Exocets would have been useless.


71 posted on 06/19/2006 2:08:46 PM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

More likely, the carriers are forming a screen to protect the true capital ships, the secretly re-activated Iowa Class Battleships.


72 posted on 06/19/2006 2:10:16 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dead

This part of RIMPAC?

http://www.c3f.navy.mil/RIMPAC_2006/about_rimpac.htm


73 posted on 06/19/2006 2:13:46 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Assume a max speed of 40 knots - and they can go quicker in an emergency.

More like 30.5 or 31 knots for the carriers.

74 posted on 06/19/2006 2:15:17 PM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dead

bttt


75 posted on 06/19/2006 2:17:04 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hc87

No comment.


76 posted on 06/19/2006 2:19:31 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Skooz; zarf

Good article on modern warship vulnerability to Exocet and other anti ship missiles

http://www.watermagazine.com/rocket.htm


77 posted on 06/19/2006 2:22:15 PM PDT by dennisw (Fate of Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: pfony1
Japan doesn’t like N Korea firing their missiles over Japan and hitting Alaska. That is what this is about.

N Korea's new missile can hit the west cost of the US.

78 posted on 06/19/2006 2:22:16 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* “I love you guys”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Here's another view for your reminiscing.

Click photo to download larger version.

79 posted on 06/19/2006 2:23:50 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Pretty sobering stuff.

Technology is a wonderful thing, but against a capable enemy, it cuts both ways.

80 posted on 06/19/2006 2:28:02 PM PDT by zarf (John Edwards is a horses ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

"A small nuke that decimates some of our ships out in a vast ocean, away from populations, will not be viewed with same world wide hysteria-agitation as a nuke deployed on land targets"

Are you quite SURE about that? I think anyone, anywhere using a nuclear weapon is going to find few that would advocate its use under almost any circumstances.

I can tell you that even some of the kooks on the left will finally get the picture if a NUKE wipes out a carrier with 5000 men and women on board.

If we fail to respond with overwhelming force to something like that, we deserve to lose.


81 posted on 06/19/2006 2:29:56 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
Actually, from a photo offering a different percpective; it looks to be three F-18's on ready alert. Two on the angle deck cats (with two ready to hook up right up), and one on the forward, starboard side cat.

9 Birds in the air at the flick of a switch.

82 posted on 06/19/2006 2:31:02 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Hey it worked!! Now how do I get rid of it?


83 posted on 06/19/2006 2:31:10 PM PDT by SAMS (Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

They're in the Pacific Ocean, huh??


Good to hear :0)


84 posted on 06/19/2006 2:34:36 PM PDT by Mo1 (Democrats Plan - Cut and Run so the terrorists can win the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Let me find the picture of General Pace in front of the B2

85 posted on 06/19/2006 2:40:45 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

I can only guess but nuking a few warships out in the ocean, away from population centers, will not be viewed with as much revulsion-condemnation as using a nuke on land forces. Nuking the ships will kill only combatants, there will be no collateral damage


86 posted on 06/19/2006 2:40:51 PM PDT by dennisw (Fate of Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Skooz; zarf; hc87
A few facts just to remember:

Not a single US fleet carrier was lost in WWII due solely to enemy action. The ones we lost all required scuttling and/or an attack by our own forces to put them down.

Not a single US fleet carrier launched after 7 December 1941 was lost at all. (CV-9 Essex and subsequent)

Saratoga, essentially at ground zero for the Able/Baker nuclear weapons tests, would not have sunk with even moderate damage control. As it was, she took several hours to go down.

The Forrestal incident involved as much explosive ordnance as a dozen simultaneous cruise missile strikes, and she wasn't lost either.

The reason they put carriers in battle groups is that they are part of an integrated defense system with their own assets (CAP), Aegis cruisers/destroyers, SSNs for ASW, etc. making it far from easy to get a missile to the carrier in the first place - and it would take a lot more than one.

The USS Stark was hit with two Exocet missiles, one of which did not explode (which makes the problem worse, since that second missile's fuel fed the fire which was a bigger problem than explosive damage). She made it.

The USS Samuel F B Roberts hit a mine directly under the keel, the exact point for maximum effectiveness. She made it.

The claims that warships are 'missile magnets' (as the referenced article claims) have been around since the claim changed from 'bomb magnet' and before that whatever other weapon was on vogue. The facts say it is very, very difficult to sink a US warship, particularly an aircraft carrier. Our damage control is better than the Brits (by demonstration) and our ships are ridiculously overdesigned by commercial standards.

But they're damn good as warships.

By the way, a simple hull speed calculation on a 1000-ft hull shows that a carrier with 280,000hp can get up to 40 kts pretty easily. The actual top speed is classified, but it's a lot more than 31 kts.
87 posted on 06/19/2006 2:48:00 PM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dead

Can anyone identify the last ship in the line in that shot?


88 posted on 06/19/2006 2:48:48 PM PDT by Starter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
By the way, a simple hull speed calculation on a 1000-ft hull shows that a carrier with 280,000hp can get up to 40 kts pretty easily. The actual top speed is classified, but it's a lot more than 31 kts.

Is that with, or without, jet assist? :-)


89 posted on 06/19/2006 2:54:27 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hiramknight

Heavy Metal ping!


90 posted on 06/19/2006 2:56:29 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ( .) Gone fishin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace poses (front and center) for a picture with members of a B-2 Stealth Bomber squadron, June 2, 2006, Anderson Air Force Base, Guam. Defense Dept. photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen

I like the guard under the B2

91 posted on 06/19/2006 3:01:27 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dead

Hey, that pilot on the extreme right rear is out of formation. Have the fleet circle around for another take.


92 posted on 06/19/2006 3:02:56 PM PDT by LexBaird ("Politically Correct" is the politically correct term for "F*cking Retarded". - Psycho Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
>>The military's budget should be $500 billion, IMO.

Social programs $0.

There, fixed it. (Grin)
93 posted on 06/19/2006 3:08:29 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dead
Beautiful Pic, what an awesome site
94 posted on 06/19/2006 3:09:15 PM PDT by exdem2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dead

Great wallpaper photo!


95 posted on 06/19/2006 3:15:00 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Terroristas-beyond your expectations!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

bookmark


96 posted on 06/19/2006 3:21:34 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I will go down with this ship, and I won't put my hands up in surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SAMS
Right click on a blank spot on your desktop.
Select 'Properties' from the drop down menu.
Click on the 'Desktop' tab.
Select 'None' or choose another background.
Click on 'Apply'.
Click on 'OK'
97 posted on 06/19/2006 3:28:45 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: zarf
An American nuclear carrier group is several orders of magnitude more capable than the tiny ships the UK sent to the Falklands, even their carriers. For one thing they didn't have any AWACS coverage, which made it possible for the "tenacious pilots of Argentina" to get within missle range. A US carrier battle group can generally "sanitize" an area 300 miles in diameter and NOTHING will get into them under power.

I'm not worried about an exocet or even a cruise missile coming in during a combat action. They've got R2D2s (Phalanx CIWS) to deal with those vampires and they work real good.   Even a top line Russian Mig with their best pilots would have a hard time getting into engagement range.  And then there's the story about the USS Ronald Reagan having directed energy point defense.  The nickname for CVN 76 is "The Ronny Ray Gun." I got a non-denial denial on that rumor from a senior chief involved in the build out of the CIC and the RRs shake down cruise as his final assignment before retirement.

No, I'm worried about a carrier battle group steaming into the Persian Gulf during some conflict and sailing over a previously placed nuke left on the bottom by the Iranians. There's no way to defend against that.

98 posted on 06/19/2006 3:34:15 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

It won't matter. It'll have the same galvanizing effect Pearl Harbor did. A backward country like NK is suddenly going to have dispatched a nuke.

The pressure to destroy NK would be immense, collateral damage notwithstanding.


99 posted on 06/19/2006 3:39:57 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
Re: Not a single US fleet carrier was lost in WWII due solely to enemy action.

Sorry, but the USS Yorktown, CV-5, was sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of Midway. After having suffered Japanese air attacks that damaged her mightily, repair crews were trying to stem flooding when the Japanese submarine I-168 torpedoed "The Fighting Lady" while also breaking the back and sinking the Destroyer USS Hammann (DD-412) that was beside the Yorktown.

From http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8791/cv5hist.html

The second attempt at salvage, however, would never be made. Throughout the night of the 6th and into the morning of the 7th, "The Fighting Lady" remained stubbornly afloat. By 0530 on the 7th, however, the men in the ships nearby noted that the carrier's list was rapidly increasing to port.

Realizing there was no hope to save her, all who were able, from the other ships watched. With respect, they removed their hats. Some cried. Many muttered "The old York's going down. The old York's going down". At 0701, as if tired, the valiant flattop turned over on her port side, gave a loud groan, and sank in 3,000 fathoms of water, her battle flags flying.

100 posted on 06/19/2006 3:43:39 PM PDT by Bender2 (Gad! The inmates have control... And I'm trying to quit smoking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson