Three US carrier strike groups steam in formation in Pacific Ocean (Awesome photo)

AP via Yahoo! ^ | 6/19/06

[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

[Bender2]

Re: It was my understanding that as they abandoned, they were trying to open scuttles so that she'd go down more quickly.

As far as I can recall, I have never heard that in regard to the sinking of the Yorktown. When the Japanese torpedoes hit both the carrier and the destroyer by her side, the repair crews were having some success in righting the flattop's list. With the new damage and the quick breakup and sinking of the Hammann, the men of the repair crew were ordered to abandon ship, not go down deeper into the ship to open scuttles...

The source I used here on FR was just one of many I could quote that would say the Yorktown was sunk by a combination of Japanese aircraft and the later torpedoes of I-168.

I understand you wanted to point out that large carriers are not that easy to sink. Last year the US Navy used the USS America as a target to see how much damage a large carrier could take before sinking. Admittedly, a empty hulk is not the same as a fully armed and manned carrier. The results are classified, but anyone with a lick of sense would admit if it floats, it can be sunk.

I just hope and pray we don't get too arrogant and put our carriers in harms way from over confidence...

[Gorjus]

...if it floats, it can be sunk.

Of course.

It's interesting that a 'show of force' has been a Navy mission since navies first arose. In some cases, placing the ship in harm's way is the mission, and a very effective one. But by definition overconfidence is wrong, and I share your hope that our leaders get the balance right.

As the USS Cole shows, we don't always.

[mkjessup]

..."if the Argentine's exocets had worked properly, the Brits would have been defeated."

Doubtful. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had already indicated that she was prepared to nuke Argentina if necessary.

Ironically, her rattling of the UK nuclear sabre was reportedly to then-French President Francois Mitterand, demanding that France hand over the deactivate codes for the French-built exocets, because the UK was not about to tolerate any more of their ships being hit as was the Sheffield.

Argentina never had a prayer, don't kid yourself otherwise my FRiend. ;)

[Lurking in Kansas]

Thanks. It's my new background.

[rfreedom4u]

I think Korea's missles are just V1 and V2 rockets with a longer range. Any word on a guidance system other than "point and hope"??

[FreeReign]

So which carrier launched the B-2 in the photo?

None of them?

[STARWISE]

[STARWISE]

Caption for the above photo

In this photo released by the U.S. Navy, three Arleigh
Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, the USS McCampbell
(DDG 85), USS Lassen (DDG 82) and USS Shoup (DDG 86)
steam in formation during a photo exercise for Valiant Shield
in the Pacific Ocean. Valiant Shield focuses on integrated
joint training among U.S. military forces.

[Brad’s Gramma]

You really MUST stop this. I've now bought 7 monitors because I can't decide which one to use....

:)

[STARWISE]

[Bigg Red]

"The terrorists have won the toss and have elected to receive."

***
I love that!!
I like your tagline, too.

[Bigg Red]

Awesome pic, but maybe it isn't the safest thing for the Navy to have this many assets so close together?

***
I know zip about military matters and protocols, but I am confident that our guys have all the contingencies covered. Remember, we don't have Clinton's DOD anymore.

[Centurion2000]

Awesome pics ... thanks for the thread.

[Bigg Red]

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

**
LOL

[P8riot]

Excellent! I spent almost my entire Navy career on carriers. Send along a big Bravo Zulu to your son from a old Navy Chief.

[P8riot]

There isn't another country on the planet that can claim to have this many of these. Let alone one.

[P8riot]

More like 30.5 or 31 knots for the carriers. - Officially. shhhhhhhhhhh!

[omega4412]

I forget who came up with that line about the terrorists. The B-52 picture is at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/b-52_11.jpg

[P8riot]

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?

These ships are only this close for the photo shoots. In reality chances are they would be spread out so much that it is likely no two ships would have visual contact with one another. They could cover many thousands of square nautical miles, it'd take a sh!tload of nukes to take them out.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"I don't have a problem with that. In fact I'd rather that most of my taxes go to the military, instead of "social programs"."

Amen, that's the only constitutional use of our public money anyway.