5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Discuss political news items / current events.

5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby Bgood » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:32 am

Inspections…’This Is Definitely A Problem’

DGM 5 Nuclear Carriers.jpg
DGM 5 Nuclear Carriers.jpg (66.9 KiB) Viewed 2579 times



http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy-li ... in-norfolk

What is wrong with this picture?
The picture is of the five nuclear carriors.
Just like Battleship Row, Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.
This picture was taken the other day in Norfolk. The Obama Administration ordered 5 nuclear carriers into harbor for "routine" (?) inspections. Heads of the Navy were flabbergasted by the directive.
NORFOLK, VA. (February 8, 2013). The first time since WWII ...that five nuclear powered aircraft carriers were docked together.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) are all in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., the world’s largest naval station.

Sources stated that this breached a long standing military protocol in the Navy meant to avoid massive enemy strike on major US forces. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Ryan J. Courtade/Released)
Bgood
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: Califorina
Been thanked: 31 times

5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby Original_Intent » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:31 am

The first time since WWII ...that five nuclear powered aircraft carriers were docked together.


Well, since the USS Enterprise (the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier) was commissioned in 1961 (thanks Google!) It should be said the first time ever, not the first time since WWII. :-B
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 8435
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Been thanked: 767 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby msfreeh » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:39 am

Looking at this as the Standardized Obamaroid Rorschach Test
let me guess Confrontation with Iran within two months followed
by Nuclear Stare Down with China and Russia? Nah. Just
follow the Yellow Brick Road, eh?
msfreeh
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:14 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: 5 NuclearPresident Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?

Postby lundbaek » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:42 am

Heads of the Navy may have been flabbergasted by the directive, but did any of them protest the directive as Admiral Richardson protested President Roosevelt's directive to station so much of the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour in 1941. They surely know that Admiral Richardson was fired and replaced by Admiral Kimmel who caught the blame for the naval loses at Pearl Harbor.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby MsEva » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:30 am

When I first saw this I was amazed and I wondered what they had going on up TPTB sleeves....then yesterday a page on FB posted this article that explains that the info going around lately isn't exactly True.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... raft.shtml

What's the real story? Welcome to the sequester.

First, the picture was actually taken in mid-December, not this month. Second, none was ordered into port for "routine maintenance."

The USS Enterprise was retired from the Navy in January. It's being dismantled.

The USS Eisenhower deployed on Thursday and is on its way to the Middle East to relieve the USS Stennis, which will return to its home port on the West Coast. The Eisenhower was in port for two months to get its flight deck resurfaced.

The USS Harry Truman was to depart on a mission to the Central Command in early February, but Navy officials asked the secretary of defense to cancel that mission, which presumably was to the Persian Gulf where the U.S. has had two aircraft carriers. Now it will have one -- the Eisenhower.

The USS Bush was not ordered into port for "routine inspections." It had been undergoing tests of its ability to have aircraft, which it does not presently have. Its cruise was canceled because of the sequester.

The USS Lincoln also was not ordered into port for routine maintenance. It was in port for a two-year refueling mission, which the Navy has now canceled because of the sequester cuts.

The Truman's situation is particularly interesting. WTVR TV in Richmond described what happens to people when a deployment is canceled.


Families depend on deployment money to pay bills. Many move home for family support. They are already gone.
Single sailors with children already sent their kids to caretakers.

Many sailors moved out of apartments or homes, have cars in storage and already set up mortgage and phones and bills. This will be a tough adjustment.

Since they are now cancelled, only delayed indefinitely, they could have to leave suddenly if the budget impasse is solved.

The Navy is asking for community help for these 5,000 sailors, giving leniency on bills.

Living arrangements, help with temporary storage, temporary transportation...many of them do not have local family or a support system.

But back to the photo: It originally was paired with a U.S. Navy story about sailors coming home for Christmas:


Home for Christmas: 9 Flattops at Norfolk naval base, December 20, 2012.
With the returns from deployment of the carrier DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER on Dec. 19, and the amphibious ships IWO JIMA and NEW YORK on Dec. 20, the piers at Norfolk's naval base are about as full up as they'll ever be.

Five aircraft carriers, four big-deck amphibious assault ships, a full cast of "small boy" surface warships, along with nuclear submarines and support ships, are crowding the base, giving a comfortably snug feeling to the waterfront. Similar scenes -- although not with the gathering of flattops seen here -- are taking place at other fleet concentration areas like San Diego and Pearl Harbor.

The Navy makes a point of trying to gives its shipboard crews a chance to spend Christmas with their families, and for a few days the percentage of ships underway drops to the lowest point it will be all year. But many of these ships will be gone in two weeks as the pace of operations picks up again.

In a decade or so, scenes such as this at Norfolk could become quite rare, as the fleet is in the midst of a gradual shift from the Atlantic to Pacific. Within a few years, about sixty percent of the U.S. Navy's ships will be homeported at a Pacific base - virtually a mirror image of the Cold War emphasis on the Atlantic.

The Navy also says the story about this being the first time so many carriers were moored together since Pearl Harbor is untrue.

Not surprisingly, the story was changed, the picture was attached, and the Internet did its thing.
MsEva
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: 5 NuclearPresident Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?

Postby msfreeh » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:53 am

lundbaek wrote:Heads of the Navy may have been flabbergasted by the directive, but did any of them protest the directive as Admiral Richardson protested President Roosevelt's directive to station so much of the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour in 1941. They surely know that Admiral Richardson was fired and replaced by Admiral Kimmel who caught the blame for the naval loses at Pearl Harbor.


In 2004 I headed north to Toronto Canada to help them videotape the International Conference on 911 see
http://www.911truth.org/911rtt/speakers.html

Admiral Kimmel's grandson was a speaker at the event talking about Pearl Harbor being a false flag operation.
Yes his grandson was a FBI agent.
see

https://www.google.com/search?q=kimmel% ... =firefox-a
msfreeh
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:14 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby gclayjr » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:09 pm

lundbaek,

General and Flag grade officiers are notorous for their political toadyism. I think our current crop is worse than most. If they aren't going to express concern over open homosexuality being made the norm (including faking the survey results among serving military personal's opinons about serving in foxholes wth openly gay military), they are not going to express any opposition to any of Obama outrageous decisions.

Regards,

George Clay
gclayjr
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby lundbaek » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:30 pm

FYI, a son of Tom Kimmel, who I expect was the speaker at the International Conference on 911 in Toronto, is a member of the LDS Church and served a mission in the Netherlands 2006-2008. I met John Kimmel at the MTC in 2006 as my wife and I were preparing for our mission in Denmark.

And for what it's worth, I have to agree with jclayjr's accessment of General and Flag grade officiers as largely yes men.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby gkearney » Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:45 pm

I showed this to a RAN officer I know. He was taken back a bit by it but admitted that the US has many more aircraft carriers than Australia. The RAN only has three, a fourth is under construction, here are the rules for their deployment.

At any time two will be deployed and one will be in port for maintanence. This applies to the destroyers and other support vessels as well.
At no time will they all be deployed in the same operational area.
All three have different home ports. Javis Bay (Pacific) Adilaide (Southern) and Garden Island (Indian) the fourth is to be stationed at Darwin (Timor Sea) this prevents a situation like what happened at Pearl Harbour in 1941.
gkearney
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:31 pm
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby Bgood » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:36 pm

Spending cuts of $85 billion this year will see the USS Harry Truman docked in Virginia due to the controversial budget battle that has pitted Obama against republicans in a fiscal showdown.
The USS Harry Truman, one of 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the US military arsenal, will not be patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf as US naval assets bear the brunt of sweeping spending cuts, it was reported in the Telegraph.
Military chiefs had asked for two aircraft carriers to be assigned to the Persian Gulf, but the Pentagon has decided that for financial reasons it can only afford to send one there at a time.
Maintenance work on another aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, has also been delayed by budgetary concerns.
The Pentagon is facing a reduction in spending of almost 500 billion over the next ten years in a total of 1.2 trillion of cuts over the same period.
Bgood
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: Califorina
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby JohnnyL » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:12 pm

That's just wrong and stupid to have them all there, whatever the "reasons" MIGHT be.
JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:10 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby natasha » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:04 pm

Perhaps an explanation: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/carriers.asp
No need for anyone to jump on me about the validity or not of snopes....I saw the information elsewhere on the net but couldn't remember where.
natasha
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:24 pm
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby Bgood » Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:39 pm

According to a source within the United States Navy, there are an inordinate number of US Naval submarines in port right now on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. With North Korea making nuclear war threats against America, why in the world would our ships be placed in positions of danger while not being in positions to defend America should North Korea make good on those threats?
Bgood
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: Califorina
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby JohnnyL » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:11 pm

I guess we're too stupid to see Pearl Harbor II?
JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:10 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: 5 Nuclear Carriers Into Harbor For “Routine” (?)

Postby Bgood » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:26 am

WASHINGTON – Just as the United States undertakes a policy “pivot” toward Asia, which will move more American ships into the East and South China seas, Beijing is letting it be known that it is fielding its new DF-21D anti-ship missile as a threat against U.S. aircraft-carrier strike groups, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The move all of a sudden casts a shadow over the platforms – the U.S. aircraft carriers and their support groups – that have allowed the U.S. to maintain military superiority in the Asia-Pacific region for generations.

Andrew S. Erickson of the Washington think-tank Jamestown Foundation said that the Chinese anti-ship missile can target what is the “last relatively uncontested U.S. airfield” in the Asia-Pacific from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.

“This airfield is a moving aircraft carrier strike group (CSG), which the Second Artillery, China’s strategic missile force, now has the capability to at least attempt to disable with the DF-21D in the event of conflict,” Erickson said.

This new anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, reflects a powerful asymmetric form of deterrence which could challenge U.S. military supremacy in the region, especially given Beijing’s new military assertiveness toward neighbors over maritime rights in the East and South China seas.
Bgood
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: Califorina
Been thanked: 31 times


Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests