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

[RinaseaofDs]

"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.

[AFreeBird]

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.

[SAMS]

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

[Mo1]

They're in the Pacific Ocean, huh??


Good to hear :0)

[BurbankKarl]

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

[dennisw]

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

[Gorjus]

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.

[Starter]

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

[AFreeBird]

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? :-)

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Heavy Metal ping!

[BurbankKarl]

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

[LexBaird]

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

[DelphiUser]

>>The military's budget should be $500 billion, IMO.

Social programs $0.

There, fixed it. (Grin)

[exdem2000]

Beautiful Pic, what an awesome site

[SwinneySwitch]

Great wallpaper photo!

[UCANSEE2]

bookmark

[tsmith130]

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'

[Phsstpok]

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.

[RinaseaofDs]

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.

[Bender2]

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.