ALERT U.S Aircraft Carrier Strike Group Heads for Mediterranean amid Russia Threats

Capt. Senile

Contributing Member
From Breitbart:
The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group was heading for the Mediterranean on Sunday amid rising tensions between the West and Russia.


I'm not sure if this is how to post an article. Hopefully I didn't screw it up too badly.
 

Samuel Adams

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Being the conspiracy enthusiast (not much of a theory anymore, are they !! )
that I am.....

I see lots of heavy, if not borderline obsolete, ordnance heading over to be scrapped out by nations who might appreciate the salvage value......now that we all know America is scheduled to become irrelevant to the world stage.


:shr:
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
well done.

Now SOME may well normally actually CUT-N-Paste the text of the article siknce the articles MAYH get "edited" after a while.)


U.S Aircraft Carrier Strike Group Heads for Mediterranean amid Russia Threats
1,677
PORTSMOUTH, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 08: The US warship USS Harry S. Truman is pictured anchored in The Solent on October 8, 2018 near Portsmouth, England. The nuclear powered aircraft carrier, named after the 33rd President of the United States with a crew of more than 5,000, has been at sea …
Matt Cardy/Getty
SIMON KENT23 Jan 20225,917
3:27
The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group was heading for the Mediterranean on Sunday amid rising tensions between the West and Russia.
The nuclear-powered Nimitz class warship and her 5,000-strong crew will take part in NATO exercises called Neptune Strike 22, AP reports.

Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, led by 6th Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Gene Black, is overseeing the joint international deployment.
The exercises are set to begin Monday and run through Feb. 4, and will “demonstrate NATO’s ability to integrate the high-end maritime strike capabilities of an aircraft carrier strike group to support the deterrence and defense of the alliance,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters.
He added the strike group, along with several other NATO allies he did not name, “will participate in coordinated maritime manoeuvers, anti-submarine warfare training, and long-range strike training.”
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg (C), looks at a F-18 Super Hornet landing on of the U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the North Sea on October 12, 2018. (JOHAN FALNES/AFP via Getty Images)
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg (C), looks at a F-18 Super Hornet landing on of the U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the North Sea on October 12, 2018. (JOHAN FALNES/AFP via Getty Images)
Kirby insisted the war games had been “long-planned,” since 2020, and were not in response to the recent Russian military aggression near the Ukrainian border, though the drills are not listed on NATO’s website among exercises slated for this year.
The announcement came a day after Russia announced its own all-out naval exercises, with more than 140 warships and about 10,000 soldiers taking part in January and February in maneuvers that will take place in the Atlantic, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Mediterranean.
The U.S. and Western allies have watched as the steady rise of Russian troop numbers near the border grew to a peak of an estimated 100,000, driving fears that Moscow was preparing to invade Ukraine.

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and shortly after threw its support behind a separatist rebellion in the country’s east. Over more than seven years, the fighting has killed over 14,000 people and devastated Ukraine’s industrial heartland, known as the Donbas.
Kirby acknowledged tensions with Russia had sparked discussions among the allies on the holding of exercises, although Russian naval capabilities are still a largely unknown quantity.
“There was due consideration about — given tensions right now — about our exercise posture. And after all that consideration and discussion with our NATO allies, the decision was made to move ahead,” he told reporters.


The strike group includes five U.S. ships —- the cruiser USS San Jacinto and the guided missile destroyers USS Cole, USS Bainbridge, USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham.
The carrier was to join the area of operations of the central command (Centcom) but U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin decided at the end of December to keep near the Mediterranean to “reassure” Europeans amid tensions with Russia.
Any further engagement beyond regional exercises is subject to debate.
As Breitbart News reported, Americans largely do not support intervening militarily in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and prefer diplomatic pressure or weapons support.
 

OldArcher

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Being the conspiracy enthusiast (not much of a theory anymore, are they !! )
that I am.....

I see lots of heavy, if not borderline obsolete, ordnance heading over to be scrapped out by nations who might appreciate the salvage value......now that we all know America is scheduled to become irrelevant to the world stage.


:shr:

Our only hope may well be RED DAWN!

OA
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I still contend, aircraft carriers are obsolete……

Too many wonder weapons out there now….

Agreed - and I'll note that wonder weapons aren't required. Aircraft carriers have been obsolete since 1945 and the advent of nuclear weapons. With even small, tactical nukes a near miss is good enough. Airburst weapons will blast, burn and irradiate ships and crews at considerable distance. Underwater bursts create their own mini tsunamis, shock waves and huge plumes of radioactive crew-killing mist at considerable distance.

The US has used aircraft carriers successfully for over a half-century because we've exclusively deployed them against smaller, non-nuclear adversaries.

IMHO this is why other nuclear powers have never made the creation of numerous aircraft carrier battle groups a priority; they realize that they are both too expensive and too fragile to last very long in a nuclear battlefield environment.

I'm sure that both ourselves and the Russians have undisclosed wonder weapons, but whatever they are they would have to be capable of 100% protection against any nuclear missile, bomb, torpedo or projectile getting from within one to twenty miles of a carrier (or any other surface ship). If only one weapon - of the many that will doubtless be launched - can slip through, all defensive protections are absolutely useless.

Our current "leaders" are obviously stupid enough to bring us to the precipice of war with Russia. I'm reasonably confident that they're also stupid enough to cross that line.

God help us all.

Best
Doc
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Agreed - and I'll note that wonder weapons aren't required. Aircraft carriers have been obsolete since 1945 and the advent of nuclear weapons. With even small, tactical nukes a near miss is good enough. Airburst weapons will blast, burn and irradiate ships and crews at considerable distance. Underwater bursts create their own mini tsunamis, shock waves and huge plumes of radioactive crew-killing mist at considerable distance.

The US has used aircraft carriers successfully for over a half-century because we've exclusively deployed them against smaller, non-nuclear adversaries.

IMHO this is why other nuclear powers have never made the creation of numerous aircraft carrier battle groups a priority; they realize that they are both too expensive and too fragile to last very long in a nuclear battlefield environment.

I'm sure that both ourselves and the Russians have undisclosed wonder weapons, but whatever they are they would have to be capable of 100% protection against any nuclear missile, bomb, torpedo or projectile getting from within one to twenty miles of a carrier (or any other surface ship). If only one weapon - of the many that will doubtless be launched - can slip through, all defensive protections are absolutely useless.

Our current "leaders" are obviously stupid enough to bring us to the precipice of war with Russia. I'm reasonably confident that they're also stupid enough to cross that line.

God help us all.

Best
Doc

That carrier battlegroup could possibly be running interference for an SSBN or SSGN. While everyone is looking at the big shiny objects such sharks could well be lurking about. Parked in the eastern Med they'd have very short flight times to either Russian or Iranian targets.
 

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Being the conspiracy enthusiast (not much of a theory anymore, are they !! )
that I am.....

I see lots of heavy, if not borderline obsolete, ordnance heading over to be scrapped out by nations who might appreciate the salvage value......now that we all know America is scheduled to become irrelevant to the world stage.


:shr:

Indeed. A billion dollar aircraft carrier can be taken out by one missile.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And they are vulnerable to a $150,000 missile.

The "trick", as it always has been, is to get the said "cheap" missile onto the target. The same goes regarding tanks and anti-tank weapons going all the way back to bows/crossbows, never mind spearmen/pikemen/phalanges, and armored horsemen and charioteers.
 
Last edited:

barbarossa58

Veteran Member
Being the conspiracy enthusiast (not much of a theory anymore, are they !! )
that I am.....

I see lots of heavy, if not borderline obsolete, ordnance heading over to be scrapped out by nations who might appreciate the salvage value......now that we all know America is scheduled to become irrelevant to the world stage.


:shr:
Well, FDR baited the Japanese to deliberately sink obsolete battleships at Pearle Harbor, but most were raised and brought back in service...
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
The "trick", as it always has been, is to get the said "cheap" missile onto the target. The same goes regarding tanks and anti-tank weapons going all the way back to bows/crossbows, never mind spearmen/pikemen/phalanges, and armored horsemen and charioteers.
Exactly. There are no guarantees here.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Well, FDR baited the Japanese to deliberately sink obsolete battleships at Pearle Harbor, but most were raised and brought back in service...

Showing that they weren't quite yet obsolete. I have no desire to see the major loss of life that is possible, but the historical revelations will be fascinating if the big one kicks off.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The "trick", as it always has been, is to get the said "cheap" missile onto the target. The same goes regarding tanks and anti-tank weapons going all the eay back to bows/crossbows, never mind spearmen/pikemen/phalanges and armored horsemen and charioteers.

With nuclear weapons, you don't have to get the "missile onto the target." Close - especially with seaborne weapons - is more than good enough and they don't even have to be especially close. I suggest that you read my earlier post in this thread. Also, it would be instructive to research 1947's Operation Crossroads and study the incredible (and often impossible) difficulties they had decontaminating target ships after the underwater detonation. Not only were the target ships badly contaminated, but the ships of the monitoring fleet were so badly contaminated that they had to have sailors abandon their berths and sleep as close as possible to the center of the ships!

The decontamination problem was so severe that the third of the three planned detonations in Crossroads was abandoned and the fleet returned to San Francisco. Even there adequate decontamination couldn't be effected on most of the monitoring ships!

You then said, "That carrier battlegroup could possibly be running interference for an SSBN or SSGN. While everyone is looking at the big shiny objects such sharks could well be lurking about."

For decades submarines have been part of carrier battle groups. The Russians - or anyone else - are not going to be fooled by surface ships being used to sneak in submarines. They will expect it as part of our standard doctrine. Further, there's a very good case to be made that, if anything, submarines are more likely to be damaged or destroyed by nukes than are surface ships. Have you ever seen aerial footage of subsea detonations and noticed the concentric shockwave spreading out at near-supersonic speed in all directions?

Submarines and their weapons contain thousands of critical, precise, sensitive parts. The Thor's Hammer slam of a nuclear shockwave against a submarine's hull - even if it doesn't sink the boat - can be expected to cause casualties and irreparably damage some of both ship and weapons components.

Lots to think about.

Best
Doc
 

db cooper

Resident Secret Squirrel
I still contend, aircraft carriers are obsolete
They are huuuuge targets, lots of weaponry goes down with them. Not to mention the loss of lives in the thousands. I suspect a hyper sonic missile launched from outer space could take one out with ease. I sincerely hope not. I hope there is some defense against all the newer weapons the Ruskies and ChiComs developed while we were playing tranny games with out military. Lots of good people will die.

If there is to be a war, as common citizens there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Our elected representatives have too much money to make off of a war to care at all about us.
 

TheChrome

Contributing Member
They are huuuuge targets, lots of weaponry goes down with them. Not to mention the loss of lives in the thousands. I suspect a hyper sonic missile launched from outer space could take one out with ease. I sincerely hope not. I hope there is some defense against all the newer weapons the Ruskies and ChiComs developed while we were playing tranny games with out military. Lots of good people will die.

If there is to be a war, as common citizens there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Our elected representatives have too much money to make off of a war to care at all about us.
There are various opinions about that subject. Here is one article that takes the opposite position:

Five Reasons U.S. Aircraft Carriers Are Nearly Impossible To Sink
 

dawgofwar10

Veteran Member
You will always have two carrier groups in the Med. the only exception would be a third group arriving to relieve one of the other carrier groups. On occasion you may have all three stay put until the situation has resolved itself, and yes, I have been launched off of carriers many times in my youth, and yes they have big bulls eyes on them.
 

SSTemplar

Veteran Member
Who said Russia was a threat to the USA. The same people that have lied about everything the last two years. Let Europe take care of itself. We will not waste any more of our men and women’s lives saving their bacon. They are not worth one American life.
 

TFergeson

Non Solum Simul Stare
I will comment on this as this is partially an area of expertise. Doc1 is correct on all points.

Our carriers are sitting ducks. The only reason they still float is because our adversaries have not yet decided to sink them. And they can. Without resorting to nukes. The end.
 

Jeff B.

Don’t let the Piss Ants get you down…
That carrier battlegroup could possibly be running interference for an SSBN or SSGN. While everyone is looking at the big shiny objects such sharks could well be lurking about. Parked in the eastern Med they'd have very short flight times to either Russian or Iranian targets.

USS Georgia is in the eastern Med... it was revealed near Cyprus last week. On purpose. It's probably operating closer to Israel and its capabilities to shield it somewhat.

There's a lot of chess pieces moving around. But, the bottom line is that we can't stop Russia from taking some or all of Ukraine. We could sink every Russian ship that's outside of a protected harbor, but that won't stop Putin and would likely start a bigger war that would spark off China's invasion of Taiwan to complete our embarrassment.

This is rapidly turning into a lose-lose game for us. No matter what course we take, we're screwed. I guess that's what happens when children try to play against the adults.

Jeff B.
 

Delta

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Not saying this is good or bad. But Biden made himself look like a fool in Afghanistan, so he may be motivated to turn this into a personal "win"--at the cost of a lot of lives, and just maybe whether it is merited or not.
 

TheChrome

Contributing Member
Not saying this is good or bad. But Biden made himself look like a fool in Afghanistan, so he may be motivated to turn this into a personal "win"--at the cost of a lot of lives, and just maybe whether it is merited or not.

Or maybe in his senility he will ask "whats this red button do? Let me press it." Putin should be terrified
 

The Hammer

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Not saying this is good or bad. But Biden made himself look like a fool in Afghanistan, so he may be motivated to turn this into a personal "win"--at the cost of a lot of lives, and just maybe whether it is merited or not.
There may be a lot of truth to this. The last thing this dud of an administration hasn't tried is the war card - trying to be the tough guy on the world stage.

Plus, the left has been so drilled with "Russia, Russia, Russia" over years that they are probably drooling for a fight with Putin.

The opportunity for epic failure of historic proportions here cannot be understated.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
With nuclear weapons, you don't have to get the "missile onto the target." Close - especially with seaborne weapons - is more than good enough and they don't even have to be especially close. I suggest that you read my earlier post in this thread. Also, it would be instructive to research 1947's Operation Crossroads and study the incredible (and often impossible) difficulties they had decontaminating target ships after the underwater detonation. Not only were the target ships badly contaminated, but the ships of the monitoring fleet were so badly contaminated that they had to have sailors abandon their berths and sleep as close as possible to the center of the ships!

The decontamination problem was so severe that the third of the three planned detonations in Crossroads was abandoned and the fleet returned to San Francisco. Even there adequate decontamination couldn't be effected on most of the monitoring ships!

You then said, "That carrier battlegroup could possibly be running interference for an SSBN or SSGN. While everyone is looking at the big shiny objects such sharks could well be lurking about."

For decades submarines have been part of carrier battle groups. The Russians - or anyone else - are not going to be fooled by surface ships being used to sneak in submarines. They will expect it as part of our standard doctrine. Further, there's a very good case to be made that, if anything, submarines are more likely to be damaged or destroyed by nukes than are surface ships. Have you ever seen aerial footage of subsea detonations and noticed the concentric shockwave spreading out at near-supersonic speed in all directions?

Submarines and their weapons contain thousands of critical, precise, sensitive parts. The Thor's Hammer slam of a nuclear shockwave against a submarine's hull - even if it doesn't sink the boat - can be expected to cause casualties and irreparably damage some of both ship and weapons components.

Lots to think about.

Best
Doc

Oh I'm fully aware of what happened with Crossroads in terms of both the effects of the blast, neutron bombardment/contamination and secondary x-rays inside of the ships, I once knew a doctor who while in the Coast Guard was a radiation safety officer there for the test series. Once you start popping nukes against US naval vessels it will be "game on".

As to subs being with the carrier battle groups, those tend to be attack submarines (SSNs) and not the "boomers".

All that being said, the idiots in DC have already proven with their fails over the last year that in no way are they up for this kind of Cold War brinksmanship.
 

ivantherussian03

Veteran Member
Sinking a United States aircraft carrier would bring down the thunder. Sure, maybe some country could do it, but what what we do in response.would they even have country left after we were done?
 

TheChrome

Contributing Member
Sinking a United States aircraft carrier would bring down the thunder. Sure, maybe some country could do it, but what what we do in response.would they even have country left after we were done?
The US has 20 carriers. 11 CVN and 9 LHD/LHA. It would be hard for 11 Carrier Strike Groups, and 9 Amphibious Ready Groups to go down. That would take more than the simplistic people want to acknowledge.
 
Top